2018-06-19

Mr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her sustained focus on housing and on tackling homelessness. It is a shared set of values in terms of the goals we are pursuing as a government.
I want to correct the record, though. When we released the national housing strategy, the UN rapporteur on housing made the following statement, which she issued to the world: 
 This is an important step that is in keeping with Canada's commitment to the right to housing contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the commitment Canada made in 1975 when it ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 
The rapporteur also said:
 I am glad to see that the Government has now made a significant shift in its approach. It is finally moving toward a more inclusive understanding of human rights, recognizing all people as rights holders, including those who live in inadequate housing and those who are homeless. 
The national housing strategy and our rights-based approach to housing stands distinct from the NDP position in two very important ways. The NDP position, which is simply to have a right to housing, does not necessarily provide a way to deliver the housing that is a right for a person. Declaring it a right will get people, perhaps, into a courthouse, but it will not get them into homes. It may introduce them to lawyers, but they need landlords. While it creates sort of a hope that they can prosecute their way into housing, the reality is that the UN convention talks about having a system of housing that people have a right to access. We have to do two things: create that rights-based approach, and create that system.
 The national housing strategy is a $40-billion investment over the next 10 years that addresses the full continuum of housing needs. The member opposite says that we are not being ambitious enough in reducing chronic homelessness by only setting a target of a minimum of 50%. She is correct. Other jurisdictions, Victoria for example, with our $30-million investment, paired with the city's investment and the province's investment, will end homelessness within two years and be at effective zero.
We think there is much progress to be made, but we also know and understand that hidden homelessness is not documented properly in this country. Better data is needed. While we step in with a robust $40-billion program, and we house hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country, lifting many out of poverty in the process, the reality is that new people will stream into the system, and we have to account for that in the way we make projections. We are doing that.
I want to contrast our $40-billion investment, which is being spent this year, right now. I was in British Columbia just a weekend ago, in Nanaimo, opening a housing project. We are opening them in Victoria. We are opening them in Vancouver. We are opening them in Toronto. We are opening them in Nova Scotia. It is an extraordinary renaissance that is happening across the country with the national housing strategy, and it comes as we start spending close to $4 billion a year on housing. We will do that over the next 10 years, increasing the funding as we grow the system.
I want to tell the House what the NDP position on homelessness was when we walked into the last election. This is not a new crisis, and nobody on this file thinks it just suddenly started in the last year or two. This is a 10-year program for a 20-year catastrophe that was in the making.
The NDP, in its approach, was only going to spend $10 million a year to solve homelessness. We are spending $200 million a year on the program that they were only going to spend $10 million on. That is an inadequate response by any measure. When it came to new, affordable housing construction, for the last three years of the mandate, based on its campaign platform, the NDP was going to spend zero, zero, and zero.
I would like to ask the member opposite, in response, how they would solve the housing crisis by not spending money and underinvesting in the sector. That was the NDP platform. That is what the NDP proposed: no housing system in which to achieve one's rights as a human in this Canadian system.
Ms. Sheri Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that it is for Canadians or the opposition to pat the government on the back for what I feel are half-measures when it comes to addressing the crisis of homelessness.
A government that is committed to a rights-based approach would not have a goal of a 50% reduction in chronic shelter users. It is my job to ask the government to match the action and investment with the urgency of the problem, which I do not feel it has done. The current goal of the national housing strategy falls well short and does not match the crisis we are facing.
All Canadians have a right to housing, not just a temporary shelter. A home should not be a reward but a fundamental human right. A right to housing is fundamental to the true realization of other human rights, like the security of a person. Canadians have a right to housing, and I would like our laws to express that.
Adam Vaughan: Mr. Speaker, I will restate this. The party opposite ran on a platform that promised to spend $10 million extra a year on homelessness, because it thought the crisis was extraordinary. The Liberals spent $100 million above and beyond what was being spent. In other words, we are spending $200 million a year, which is 20 times more than the other party, and the other party says that we are being timid and inadequate. The only thing worse than the government not achieving much more success on this would be if the party opposite had been elected and had kept its promise.
 When it comes to the right to housing, it is pointless to have a right to housing if the housing people need is not provided. The party opposite, while it talks about a right to housing, now has the opportunity to support a rights-based approach. It talks about it being a crisis, and it has an opportunity to support our budget that is putting more money into housing than that party ever dreamed of putting in a platform, let alone actually investing in real housing.
If the party opposite is serious about the housing crisis in this country, it should be commending us for taking the bold action we have taken, supporting the legislation we are putting in front of this House—
The Speaker: Order. Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12:09 a.m.)

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
Certificates of NominationHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Certificate of Nomination, with the biographical notes, for the proposed appointment of Yves Giroux as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I request that the Certificate of Nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Interparliamentary DelegationsMr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the bilateral mission to the Republic of Kenya, Nairobi, and other cities in the Republic of Kenya, from March 11 to 17.
It also gives me the opportunity to thank the analysts on the committee, André Léonard and Brian Hermon, as well as our clerk, Grant McLaughlin, for their fine work throughout this year.
Committees of the HouseMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Report on Highly Sweetened Pre-Mixed Alcoholic Beverages”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
 I want to compliment the clerk, the analysts, and the authors of this report, who have captured the essence of our study so well, as they always do. I also want to thank the members of the committee and witnesses who helped us come to a conclusion on this urgent issue.
Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Kildonan—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, entitled “From the Ashes: Reimagining Fire Safety and Emergency Management in Indigenous Communities”. 
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I want to note that it was a unanimous report. We heard from many people across the nation about evacuation services. A lot of this was triggered by the fact that hon. members from the opposition had the opportunity to see two sites, one in British Columbia and one in Manitoba, to highlight the differences and the challenges.
I sincerely thank those who participated and presented to the committee to help make a fulsome report.
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):  
[Member spoke in aboriginal language]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 66th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled “The Use of Indigenous Languages in Proceedings of the House of Commons and Committees”.
[Member spoke in aboriginal language]
This is a historic report. The clerks and members of Parliament realize the magnitude of the report to bring indigenous languages into the House of Commons. It started when the member for Winnipeg Centre spoke in an indigenous language and brought this issue up. The Speaker referred it to the procedure and House affairs committee, which was very proud, as all members of the House of Commons and this Parliament will be, of this important step toward reconciliation and this change to the House of Commons with respect to our relations with aboriginal people. There was also great input from the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
I congratulate all the committee members, the members of Parliament, and all the clerks and researchers involved in this very historic report.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Addressing Digital Privacy Vulnerabilities and Potential Threats to Canada’s Democratic Electoral Process”.
I would like to thank all members of the committee and all witnesses who appeared before us.
Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Status of Women, entitled “A Call to Action: Reconciliation with Indigenous Women in the Federal Justice and Correctional Systems”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. 
I would like to thank the clerk as well as all of our analysts who have worked on this. It is a great report, and I am proud to table a second report in less than two weeks.
Ms. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Conservative Party's supplementary report with regard to the study on indigenous women in the justice system completed by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
As Conservatives, we will always stand up for victims of crime. Because the majority of indigenous women in the correctional system were first victimized before they became perpetrators, it is incumbent upon Canada's justice system to focus, first and foremost, on standing up for victims to ensure they receive the assistance they need to recover from the sins committed against them. 
In our supplementary report, we urge the government to make indigenous women, rather than the bloated bureaucracy, the focus of its financial investments. 
Official Languages ActMr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-411, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (understanding of official languages).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to continue the long fight for access to justice in both official languages, a fight that was started by our former colleague, Yvon Godin. 
After introducing Bill C-203 on the bilingualism of Supreme Court of Canada judges, which was sadly voted down by the Liberals, I am now introducing a bill to amend the Official Languages Act in relation to the understanding of official languages. To summarize, this bill would require the government to commit to ensuring that judges who sit on the Supreme Court understand both official languages.
In its report entitled “Ensuring Justice is Done in Both Official Languages”, the Standing Committee on Official Languages made a series of recommendations, the first being that the government table a bill during the 42nd Parliament guaranteeing that bilingual judges are appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 
It is obvious that the government lacks both the will and the resolve to listen to the experts' testimony and to the committee members.
Everyone knows that a policy is not an effective way to ensure access to justice in both official languages. A policy is not a law. That is why I am introducing a bill that, admittedly, is not a panacea. However, it is a good step forward, and it will help improve the situation.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Canada Shipping Act, 2001Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-412, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Compensation for Damage Due to Navigation and Shipping Activities Fund).
Mr. Speaker, this morning I have the honour to introduce, seconded by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, a bill that offers a meaningful response to victims of the incidents in Yamachiche.
Even though a report submitted to Transport Canada stated that damages suffered by residents were not attributable to an act of God, those residents never received financial compensation. As faithful representatives of the people, and in keeping with the practice established by Jack Layton, we have honoured our duty to oppose the government by questioning it about this issue.
With the introduction of this bill this morning, we are proposing a solution. This very simple bill would create a fund to support victims of maritime incidents. Money in the fund would come from penalties incurred by vessels that break Transport Canada rules. Victims would receive compensation without burdening the public purse.
In the spirit of collaboration, we invite the Minister of Transport to consider this bill and champion it without delay.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Parliamentary LibrarianBardish Chagger:  moved:
 That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), the House approve the appointment of Heather P. Lank as Parliamentary Librarian for a term of five years. 

The Speaker:  The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  On division.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
PetitionsMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition regarding the Canada summer jobs program. It is signed by constituents from my riding and surrounding areas.
The petitioners believe that the current Liberal government's proposed attestation, requiring Canada summer jobs program applicants to hold the same view as the government, would contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today signed by petitioners from my constituency.
The petitioners call on the Prime Minister to defend the freedoms of conscience, thought, and belief and withdraw the attestation requirement for applicants to the Canada summer jobs program. 
Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise again and table a petition in support of Bill C-312, an act to establish a national cycling strategy. My constituents have asked that I table this petition today. It is especially timely because we have recently lost lives as a result of undue safe cycling in our major city centres.
National cycling strategies have been implemented in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Australia and have made a huge difference with respect to safe cycling. They have saved lives and improved the health of their citizens. Infrastructure costs and greenhouse gas emissions have been lowered. They also have relieved congestion.
My bill has been supported by communities like Port Alberni and Courtenay in my riding, but also by the cities of Victoria and Toronto. The mayor of Ottawa just endorsed the bill, and FCM just supported an active transportation strategy, with the support of over 95% of its members.
The petitioners call on the government to urgently implement a national cycling strategy.
Mr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House on behalf of the thousands of citizens who have signed a petition, calling on the Canadian government to fully back Motion No. 105. 
Motion No. 105, which was unanimously passed in the House on April 5, 2017, called on the government to increase funding and national efforts to launch a strategy to eradicate ALS. Every year, 1,000 Canadians die from ALS, including the tragic loss of our former colleague the Hon. Mauril Bélanger in 2016.
The petitioners call on the government to fully back Motion No. 105 and to contribute direct funding to ALS research every year until ALS has been eradicated.
Hon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition signed by Manitobans who are calling on the government to abandon its attestation requirement for applicants for the Canada summer jobs program.
The petitioners call on the Prime Minister to stand up for Canadians' freedom of belief and freedom of conscience, even if it is a different belief than what the government has, and to reaffirm those rights that Canadians have to believe differently than any government.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition to the government concerning a pan-Canadian strategy for eating disorders.
The petitioners indicate that eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia have the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses, that the first cause of death is cardiac arrest and the second is suicide; and that children as young as seven are being diagnosed and hospitalized. They also reaffirm how important this is and the impact that this has on their families.
The petitioners call on the government to support Motion No. 117, which happens to be my motion. They also ask that the government initiate discussions with the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for health and all stakeholders to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian strategy for eating disorders to include better prevention, diagnosis, treatment, support, and research.
Mr. David Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition regarding human organ trafficking. In light of a continued global market for illegally harvested human organs, the petitioners are asking that Parliament and the Government of Canada move quickly to ensure that Bill C-350, which is before this House, and Bill S-240, which is in the other place, are passed, and that Canada does its share to combat organ harvesting and trafficking. 
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are increasing concerns about international traffic in human organs. There are two bills addressing these concerns, Bill C-350 before the House and Bill S-240 in the other place. The petitioners are urging the Parliament of Canada to move quickly on proposed legislation to amend the Criminal Code. This would prohibit Canadians from travelling abroad to acquire human organs removed without consent, and bar any permanent residents or foreign nationals who participate in this abhorrent trade.
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in also tabling a petition highlighting the issue of international organ trafficking. There are two bills: one before this House, my private member's Bill C-350, which was actually proposed by Irwin Cotler in a previous Parliament, as well as Bill S-240, proposed by Senator Salma Ataullahjan in the other place. 
These are important bills that would make it a criminal offence for a Canadian to go abroad to receive an organ harvested without consent. Petitioners are asking the government to pass at least one of these bills expeditiously, so we can move forward and be part of the solution to this global problem. 
Ms. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is unprecedented awareness these days about the problems of marine plastics all around the globe. There are terrible images of whales choked on plastics and sea turtles entangled. As a result, we are seeing great citizen action in terms of collecting petition signatures in support of the motion tabled by my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. Motion No. 151 calls on Canada to adopt a national strategy to take real action on marine plastics. This would include regulations to limit the use of single-use plastics, as well as ongoing funding to deal with historic ghost fishing nets and other debris that originates in places other than Canada. 
On Oceans Day we had a lot of people from Ladysmith and Nanaimo signing petitions, and we commend this petition to the House. 
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by nearly 200 people from across Quebec and Ontario to protect wetlands. 
Given that wetlands have great ecological value and often serve as buffer zones in developed areas, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to take a firm position to ensure compliance with the federal policy on wetland conservation, which aims to improve and preserve the environment so as to prevent increasing natural disasters, by designating the wetlands bordering Lake Saint-François as protected areas.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present two petitions. I join with many colleagues in supporting two private members' bills that are currently before Parliament, Bill C-350 from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and Bill S-240, which started in the Senate. 
These bills aim to make it illegal for Canadians and all permanent residents or foreign nationals to participate in the abhorrent trade of human organs removed without consent or as the result of a financial transaction. The petition is clearly widely supported. 
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, on the second petition, I want to specifically reference the petitioners, who are a group of young women attending Balmoral Hall in Manitoba. They have signed a petition calling for a ban on animal testing. The petitioners point out that other jurisdictions, particularly in the European Union, which accounts for half the global cosmetic market, prohibit the importation and sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals. Norway, India, and Israel have also banned animal testing in cosmetics. These young women call on the House of Commons to do the same. 
Mrs. Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible to table a report from committee. I was not able to be here when you were requesting reports from committees. I would request unanimous consent to table this report. 
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to return to presenting reports from committees?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Committees of the HouseBernadette Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Atlantic Canada's Marine Commercial Vessel Length and Licensing Policies—Working Towards Equitable Policies for Fishers in all of Atlantic Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. 
I would like to thank all committee members for their work on this. It is a unanimous report. We are very excited to present this, and look forward to a great response from the government. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsKevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 1699, originally tabled on June 11, 2018 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Mr. Blake Richards: With regard to registered charities that indirectly fund Canadian political activity or campaigns through foreign or third party entities: what specific action to stop such funding is being taken by (i) the Canada Revenue Agency, (ii) Elections Canada?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
Request for Emergency DebateThe Speaker: I have a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Durham.
Hon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I make the request in accordance with Standing Order 52, with respect to an emergency debate on NAFTA, on trade with the United States, and on the overall special relationship with the United States, which is tattered at the moment. All parliamentarians should be able to speak to this before we rise for the summer.
We are quickly approaching the one-year mark since the commencement of formal negotiations to modernize NAFTA. There have been multiple rounds. All sides appreciate the tremendous work done by the Canadian negotiating team, but NAFTA has come to a standstill in terms of the negotiations. In recent months, in fact, we have being seeing setbacks and not moves forward.
If it were not already complicated enough, with the U.S. trade relationship being our country's most critical economic relationship, the president's misuse, I would suggest, of section 232 exemptions under the Trade Expansion Act for steel and aluminum has further clouded and complicated talks in relation to trade with the United States. The imposition of a 10% tariff on aluminum and a 25% tariff on steel runs contrary to the history of our great countries and the integration of our economies, and certainly clouds the negotiating table for NAFTA. 
It is spiralling from there, because now we are a few days away from the imposition of reciprocal tariffs worth billions of dollars, which Canada is imposing as a retaliatory measure in relation to the steel and aluminum tariffs.
We support Canada being strong in the face of unreasonable demands by the United States and the inappropriate use of national security exemptions with respect to commodities. Since the last war, aluminum from Canada has provided the body of the fighter aircrafts that both Canadian and American pilots have flown in defence of our countries, and in the defence of North America through NORAD. The unique security partnership has not been focused on enough to show how ridiculous the application of section 232 is with respect to Canada.
The reciprocal tariffs, though, will complicate all manufacturing industries in Ontario, because many of the component parts for assembly, whether it is in the auto industry or for companies like General Dynamics, use American steel imports. Already, on both sides of the border, we are going to see jobs at risk, we are going to see higher prices for consumers, and we are going to see the Canadian and U.S. economies becoming uncompetitive. 
Why does this warrant a special debate under Standing Order 52? There are almost two million jobs directly tied to exports to the United States. Once our tariffs are imposed on July 1, there is the possibility that the President of the United States has already alluded to, of a 25% tariff on finished vehicles. 
Historically, since the Auto Pact between our countries started free trade between Canada and the U.S., over 80% of the vehicles assembled in Ontario, in communities like Windsor, Oakville, St. Catharines, and Oshawa, have been for export to the United States. With just-in-time manufacturing, often parts and assembly have crossed our border in an integrated fashion as many as seven times before the completion of a vehicle. Tariff imposition of this nature would be devastating for the auto industry in Ontario, and after our resource industry, this is the most critical contributing sector to our gross domestic product.
 There has never been such a looming threat to the Canadian economy than the threat we are looking at now, based in large part on a number of unreasonable and unfair demands by the U.S. administration. That is why we need an emergency debate. 
It is late in the year and I know many of us want to get back to our ridings, but we owe it to Canadians and to all parliamentarians to have a serious plan articulated in this House by the government. With over two million jobs, every riding in this House is impacted directly by trade with the United States. Every parliamentarian should be be able to be part of team Canada. Team Canada is more than a hashtag. A debate would enable us to provide ideas, support, and proposals to the government. 
Before we rise, it is also incumbent on the government to present to Parliament a clear plan on the reciprocal tariffs that would go into effect on July 1, and what plan will be in place if auto tariffs are imposed by the president. This debate would also allow the government to provide confidence to workers who are already being impacted in the steel and aluminum industries, and to provide a plan and a sense of calm ahead of the potential for auto tariffs.
This is about Parliament at its best, where all parliamentarians on both sides can speak to probably the biggest potential economic crisis we have seen in our lifetime. Parliamentarians need to be able to debate this in such a way that we can truly forge a team Canada approach. Canadians need to see their parliamentarians seized with this, because the House will not sit again until September and Canadians need to know that all MPs are concerned and will fight for Canada's interests.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Durham for raising his request for an emergency debate. However, I am afraid I do not find that it meets the exigencies of the Standing Order.

Government Orders
Firearms ActBardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, I move:
 That in relation to Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and 
 That at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment. 

The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair will have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this time allocation motion will once again undermine our ability to debate Bill C-71, which is a farce. This is nothing more than political games and a public relations exercise, and once again it targets hunters and law-abiding Canadians.
 I would now like to hear the minister's thoughts on a serious problem concerning indigenous peoples. Heather Bear, the vice-chief of the Ochapowace Nation in Saskatchewan, the minister's province, appeared before the committee and said that Bill C-71 is probably unconstitutional, that indigenous peoples had traditions, and that they did not have to comply in any way with the contents of Bill C-71. 
How can we have two categories of citizens, law-abiding hunters and gun owners on the one hand, and indigenous peoples on the other, who claim that this bill does not apply to them? How can we ensure public safety when people ignore what we are trying to do? 
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the legislation was very thoroughly discussed in a committee of this House, and I want to thank the public safety and national security committee for the good work it did. It heard a great many witnesses, 26 altogether. It held five meetings, and had three further meetings to deal with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The committee amended the legislation in three specific ways. In fact, an amendment from each of the parties was successful in getting through that process. That reflects a very conscientious effort on the part of members of Parliament, not only in this House but in the committee, to listen to witnesses such as the chief referred to by the spokesman for the official opposition and to respond accordingly. Parliament has done its job in a very effective way.
Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): Madam Speaker, when I had a beard, people used to get me mixed up with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
Let us move on to more serious things, like this time allocation motion. During second reading of Bill C-71, the Liberals introduced a bill that the minister bragged about. I do not entirely disagree with him. We support some aspects of it, but we still have some concerns and questions about other aspects. The minister said he wanted to bring a balanced approach to firearms legislation in Canada. However, we know that this debate is very emotional, and understandably so.
However, at second reading, before I even had a chance to speak to the bill as the critic from the second opposition party, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion. Now, after only a few hours of debate, they come back with yet another time allocation motion.
The Liberals say that they take very seriously the concerns of victims who are calling for more control over firearms and those of firearms owners, who have questions about some of the provisions in the bill.
If we want to have a healthy debate on this difficult and complex issue in Canada, why move a time allocation motion? Why not truly take the time to listen to parliamentarians as they share the concerns of their constituents?
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, indeed a very substantial amount of time has been taken. I would remind hon. members that the content of Bill C-71 was included in the election campaign of 2015 in great detail. The proposals were laid out in the election platform. That was the subject of a complete campaign, and in fact endorsed by Canadians in general as a result of the election.
In terms of the legislation now specifically before the House, which reflects very faithfully what was in the campaign platform, we tried to call this bill twice at second reading and ran into parliamentary shenanigans which delayed or diverted the discussion onto something else so we could not get to this subject matter. When we were finally able to get to the subject matter, there were six hours of debate at second reading. Then the bill went to committee. There were five meetings in the committee. There were 26 witnesses. There were three more meetings to deal with clause-by-clause consideration. Three amendments were adopted.
 Now there will be five more hours of debate at report stage and five more hours of debate at third reading. That will provide ample opportunity for members of Parliament to reflect their views and the views of their constituents.
Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is quite clear this is the backdoor gun registry coming back. Under Bill C-71, if a firearms owner sells a firearm to another individual, he or she would have to call a registrar and that purchase would now be registered. Even though both individuals have a valid possession and acquisition licence and show that they are valid, they would still have to call the registrar to have that purchase registered.
It is quite clear from the research done on the old Liberal firearms registry that law-abiding citizens complied with it. I certainly did. However, at the same time, there was zero evidence it reduced crime. On the other hand, we have Bill C-75, where the Liberals would be making punishment for violent crimes and criminals more lenient, while at the same time, under Bill C-71, they would be punishing law-abiding citizens. In the Liberal world, it is far easier to punish law-abiding citizens because they obey the law and the criminals do not. Why this dichotomy? Why are criminals treated better than law-abiding citizens under the Liberal government?
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question.
The issue of it being a registry or not was very thoroughly discussed in the parliamentary committee. I would note the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, a member of the Conservative Party, said in committee, “Everybody at this table agrees that this is not a registry.” That is very clear, on the record, in the committee. Indeed, the committee went a step further and it adopted an amendment. The amendment says:
 For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to permit or require the registration of non-restricted firearms. 
That is embedded in the law. That amendment was accepted unanimously in the parliamentary committee. It was proposed by a Conservative. 
It is abundantly clear that this phony fiction from the Conservatives that this somehow amounts to a registry in any way, shape, or form is completely, utterly, and absolutely false.
Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for being here to talk about this important issue. I just want to share with him how disappointed I am that we are again seeing time allocation on a bill that is incredibly important to the people of North Island—Powell River. This is something I have received letters of concern around.
There is one concern I have been hearing a lot about and perhaps the minister could please share with this House how he is going to address it. Right now, with a PAL, if someone has a gun that is not working properly, he or she can take it to the gunsmith to be fixed. With this legislation, that is going to change. That causes a lot of concern. People in my riding are concerned about having a gun that is live, that has not discharged a bullet. They do not know how they are going to store it safely, and they are going to have to ask for the ability to take it to the gunsmith.
This is something I am really hoping to see change before this bill passes through the final stages. I would like the minister to share with this House how he is going to address this very important issue.
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and the first part of the answer is that the transportation authorizations that are required under the legislation apply only to restricted and prohibited weapons. They do not apply to ordinary hunting rifles or other kinds of weapons that fall in the category of non-restricted. That is a fact.
The transportation requirements relate only to restricted and prohibited weapons. In the administration of that procedure, which will apply to the transportation of maybe 5% of firearms in total, the officials who will be in charge of the administration of the transportation authorizations, in fact, understand that service to customers is exceedingly important, that Canadians who will be operating under the terms of the legislation will be expecting that their requests for transportation authorizations will be dealt with in a conscientious and expeditious fashion. That is a reasonable expectation on the part of Canadians. The officials administering that provision under this law have an obligation to provide a high standard of service.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as usual, the minister provides great insight behind the rationale for the bill and the execution of the bill.
I want to go back to a couple of the comments that have been made on the use of closure, and the NDP members, in particular, saying that they have not had enough time to debate this. I share with the House that this is my 18th June here. I have been here in June as a member of the government and as a member of the opposition. This is typical of what happens every June.
I know we have members in our caucus who say that what the opposition is doing is terrible, that the opposition is tying us up and not letting us get our legislation through. We did the same thing when we were in opposition. I know that my colleague has spent more Junes here than I have.
As my colleague indicated, we ran on a platform. This was central to our platform, to rationalize gun legislation in this country. We are simply making sure that this is done. As well, there were three amendments accepted. We never saw amendments accepted under the previous Conservative government. Maybe the minister could reflect on the difference between the processing of legislation now compared to previously under the Conservatives, with their lack of consultation and their lack of accepting any amendments.
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, this takes me back to the work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security which did a very conscientious job in looking at this legislation. Obviously, as members have reflected in the House today, this is a subject that provokes strong emotions on one side of the case or the other side of the case and it is perfectly legitimate and proper that those varying perspectives be brought to the floor of the House of Commons and brought to the standing committee for proper debate and discussion.
The discussion at committee was very thorough. There were five meetings to hear evidence and receive briefs. Twenty-six witnesses were called. The committee then went into clause-by-clause consideration and spent three more days dealing with Bill C-71 clause by clause. In the course of that, the committee adopted three very useful amendments. One enhances the process of background checks. One deals with the authorizations that are required with respect to the verification of licences on purchases. That one, incidentally, came from the NDP and it was a very useful amendment to expedite that process.
The committee did its work. It studied the bill and reflected on what needed to be improved. It made those improvements and we are now at report stage and soon at third reading.
Bob Zimmer: Madam Speaker, I beg to differ with the hon. minister. We have talked about the backdoor registry and he has talked about that they made promises. We heard the member from the Atlantic coast that there was not going to be any registry, but this is from the actual legislation which says:
 provide the Quebec Minister with a copy of all records that were in the Canadian Firearms Registry on April 3, 2015 and that relate to the firearms registered, as at that day, as non-restricted firearms, 
This is where the Liberals are actually giving a copy of what was supposed to have been destroyed. It was only preserved for one reason and that was for an access to information request from a man named Bill Clennett. The only reason that copy should still exist today is for that fulfillment, that purpose alone. The minister, through legislation, is making that copy available to the Quebec government. It should have been destroyed. He knows that. He knows that this is wrong, yet he is still bringing the legislation forward. I think he needs to back down and pull this out of the legislation. Honour what your promises were to the Canadian public that the registry was supposed to not be resurrected.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I would remind the member that all questions are to be addressed through the chair.
 The hon. minister, please.
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, the commitment that was made in our platform was loud and clear that there would be no federal long-gun registry and there is none.
The provision in the legislation that the hon. gentleman is referring to results from a legal and constitutional quagmire that was created by the previous government in the way that it dealt with instructions that came to the previous government from the Information Commissioner. The Conservatives were into a knock-down, drag-out fight with the Information Commissioner about the way that they were handling the long-gun registry long before the election and long before our government came into place. 
We were stuck with a mess that we inherited from that crowd and we entered into negotiations with the Information Commissioner to stop the litigation, to stop the constitutional dispute, and to put the law of the country back on an even keel. We are doing that through this legislation, but we are not, I repeat, we are not, creating a federal long-gun registry.
Robert Aubin: Madam Speaker, I will focus my remarks on the time allocation motion, even though we should be spending a lot more time on the bill. The irony is that the Liberals have just told us that the 338 members of the House will collectively have 300 minutes to debate the bill. That is less than the amount of time I just spent on the lead-up to my question. 
A time allocation motion should demonstrate that there is a certain urgency. However, we have a government that has had a rather thin legislative agenda since coming to power.
What is the urgency? Why does the government now want to move so quickly?
Unless I am mistaken, when we return from the summer recess we will not be going into an election. We will still have time to debate such important and sensitive bills as the firearms bill.
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, again, let me repeat the record of what the House has gone through with respect to Bill C-71. The bill got six hours of debate at second reading. It was then referred to the standing committee. The standing committee held five full meetings to receive evidence and hear witnesses; the members in fact heard 26 witnesses. Then they went into clause-by-clause for three further meetings, and they adopted three amendments to the legislation. 
Now the bill comes back to the House for report stage and third reading. It was debated for several hours last night. That debate will now go on for five more hours at report stage. It will then go on for five more hours at third reading. That will result in a very ample opportunity for members to participate in the discussion and put their views on the record. The issues before Parliament require that we debate and discuss things, but they also require that at some point we take a decision and vote.
David Anderson: Madam Speaker, my colleague across the aisle continues to be as slick as used oil on this issue. The reality is that we have to register every sale, register every firearm, register the person who is purchasing, register the PAL number, and the information has to be kept for 20 years. That is a registry.
The second issue that I want to bring up is that the member keeps talking about the extensive consultation the Liberals have done. That is actually not true. The Assembly of First Nations representatives have said that, first of all, they were not consulted; second, this legislation violates their treaty rights; and third, they will see the government in court.
As well, there is opposition from Yukon. People have said, in their briefing, that unlike the provinces, Yukon has only one member of Parliament, which leads to situations where the input of northerners is often an afterthought and is not taken into account. This is the case with this piece of firearms legislation. Representatives from the Yukon Fish and Game Association said the same thing. They cannot get through to their member of Parliament. He will not represent them, and they have not had an opportunity to speak to the government about this.
Why does the member not just admit that the Liberals have failed Canadians completely on this? They have failed to consult, and they do not really care.
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, I cannot possibly admit that because it is false.
First, on the question of the consultation, that was gone through prior to the legislation, before our platform was put together, during the course of the election, after the election, in the preparation of the legislation, and so forth. That information was requested some weeks ago in an Order Paper question. That question has been answered, and all the details of the consultation are now on the public record in response to the Order Paper question.
Second, I would underscore the fact that the content of Bill C-71 was embodied in specific promises in our election campaign. Those promises were thoroughly debated over the course of the longest election campaign in Canadian history. In fact, Canadians had an opportunity to vote on the content, and the result of that vote was clear.
Third, there were two further key channels for consultation. One was the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, which examined the content of what would become Bill C-71. I would also note that a few months ago we convened here in Ottawa a national guns and gangs summit, which dealt with a number of issues, including firearms. It was well attended, including by members of the opposition and almost all of the major organizations that deal with firearms, and we had a very good discussion in the course of that summit meeting. 
Therefore, there were, indeed, extensive consultations.
Mr. Michel Picard (Montarville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, obviously my colleague confuses a registry with good common practices in business.
With respect to time allocation, in terms of efficiency, there is a misunderstanding of what it is to be efficient. Maybe the minister could inform Canadians and this chamber of the level of preparation, before getting to this piece of legislation, with the different stakeholders to show Canadians how well prepared this piece is to answer their needs.
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to keep Canadians safe; to add, in a measurable way, to public safety; to assist the police in pursuing guns that are involved in a crime or crimes that involve guns; and to make sure that, in the process of doing that, we are treating law-abiding gun owners across the country in a fair and reasonable manner.
The legislation involves strengthening background checks, improving the process for licence verification, requiring standard business record-keeping across the country, making sure that classifications are done in a professional and consistent manner, and ensuring that unusual movements of restricted and prohibited weapons require a transportation authorization. Those measures, taken together, will make an important contribution to public safety.
 We have the endorsement of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and police forces across the country. We also have comments from a number of people representing fishing and gaming organizations. They, too, see the proposed legislation, although not unanimously, as reasonable measures.
We have tried to strike here a reasonable balance that is fair and effective for all concerned.
Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC): Madam Speaker, I am struck by the fact that the minister, usually one of the most bombastic ministers in the House, combative almost every single day here, is obviously very uncomfortable when it comes to the topic of time allocation. I wondered why. I went back and looked at some of what he had to say previously in the House. I looked back to April 30, 2012, when he talked about our government at the time. He said, “They have used closure to ram through their legislation more times in four or five months than most majority governments used in four or five years.” Now, this is the third time in three weeks that he has used time allocation or given notice of time allocation. I think that might be a record.
On May 2, 2013, he said this:
 Mr. Speaker, with respect to the timing issue here, obviously it is unfortunate when debate in the House is curtailed by the use of time allocation or closure. That impinges upon the democratic right of members of Parliament to adequately consider matters that are before the House. 
I wonder if the minister stands by his own words.
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, what the member has to take into account in determining whether time allocation is appropriate in any set of circumstances is in fact how much time is being allotted to the consideration of the measure before the House. In this case, at second reading, there were six full hours of debate. In the committee, there were five full meetings to receive evidence and hear witnesses, and 26 witnesses appeared in the process of those hearings. Then there were three more meetings to deal with clause-by-clause, and that brings us to this point.
There were several hours of debate last night at report stage. Going forward, there will be five more hours at report stage, and after that, five more hours to deal with third reading. Altogether, that gives ample time for consideration. 
When we compare those numbers to a lot of other pieces of legislation that go through Parliament, it is obvious that this topic is getting a very thorough airing. 
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have been in the House for 10 Junes now, not as many as my hon. colleagues have mentioned, but I have seen governments use time allocation. I would point out that time allocation does have a purpose in the House, but I want to start from the principle that citizens of this country send us here to this chamber to scrutinize legislation and to debate. That is the essence of democracy. The government can introduce legislation, and it will ultimately win the vote, but in the meantime it is our job as opposition to scrutinize, discuss, and debate to bring to bear other perspectives on the legislation. Therefore, I think time allocation ought to be used sparingly, and only when it is clear that the opposition is perhaps misusing that power and trying to be deleterious and hold up the government, which is not the case with this legislation. The previous government used time allocation some 100 times, and the current Liberal government is approaching 50 times of using time allocation, which does nothing but limit debate in the House.
On the proposed legislation, I personally support solid, reasonable gun restrictions in this country. It is important that we have reasonable restrictions, and it keeps our communities safe. However, I was talking to a constituent last week, Tom Chan, who is a lawful gun owner. His question to me was whether this legislation would preserve the interests of lawful gun owners or unduly restrict their rights.
Does the hon. member think that this legislation will be effective in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and those who would misuse them?
Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, let me repeat that we have worked very hard to try to ensure that this legislation gets ample time in committee and in the House, and I believe that, on balance, we have achieved that.
In terms of the substance of his question at the end of whether this will contribute to public safety, yes, I believe it will, in a number of ways, for example in improving background checks. I might say that on that topic, there appears to be almost universal support on both sides of the chamber. The idea of background checks, as I think he would remember, was raised in the House a long time ago by James Moore, who was a Conservative member of Parliament. He made a very strong case for enhancing background checks, and now we are doing, in effect, what Mr. Moore, the former Conservative MP, proposed. 
By enhancing background checks, we will collectively, as a society, do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of people who have a reputation for violence, have criminal records, or are otherwise considered to be a danger to society, including threatening behaviour on the Internet. Again, I would note that as a result of amendments proposed in the standing committee, the provisions around background checks have, in fact, been enhanced and strengthened. One of the critical elements in protecting society is to make sure background checks work. The—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Unfortunately, time is up.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. Shall I dispense?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): [Chair read text of motion to House]
 Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes):  In my opinion the yeas have it.
 And five or more members having risen:  
 Call in the members.
[Stage Direction]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Vote #869
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-64, An Act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-64. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon. 
Sheila Malcolmson:  moved: 
 That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 5. 
Mr. Speaker, I am standing once again in the House to talk about the imperative for federal action to deal with abandoned vessels. Because of fishermen being forced out of the commercial fishing fleets, because fibreglass is reaching the end of its lifetime, and because climate change is creating different types of storms, all coasts of Canada are littered with abandoned vessels. 
For 15 years, it has been clear that there is a jurisdictional hole that no government has been able to fill. As a result, it has fallen to coastal communities, which have had to try to jerry-rig solutions. My predecessor, Jean Crowder, as the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, had legislation in the House that was supported by the Liberal Party when it was the third party, so we had real optimism that in this session of Parliament, we would find legislative solutions for abandoned vessels. 
I think back to my start, when I was first elected chair of the Islands Trust Council, which is a regional government in the Salish Sea charged with a mandate of preservation and protection. We were approached by ratepayers on Parker Island, just off Galiano Island, in the Salish Sea. They had been trying for 10 years to get a government department to agree to help them with a wrecked barge from the early 1980s that had been sitting on their shore for 10 years. Every department gave them the runaround. They were told to talk to navigation, talk to environment, talk to land management, and talk to the Coast Guard. They were at the end of their rope, so on behalf of the Islands Trust Council, I went to the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities conference. There were five other resolutions, not just from the Islands Trust Council but from local governments from all over British Columbia, the Sunshine Coast, and the Vancouver Island area that were facing the same problem, and we were all at the end of our rope. 
We were able to bring together solutions. We said, “Let us get together and design what would be a good fit.” We looked to Washington state, which has had a very successful abandoned vessel program operating since the early part of this century and lots of working experience. We passed resolutions. The AVICC did, as did the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It became a big election issue in my riding, because with a huge, 100-foot, hulking boat that the federal government towed into their harbour, residents wanted to vote on this. They were looking for an MP who would take the imperative to act to Ottawa. I was so honoured to be elected to do this work. 
In the legislation I tabled in this House, I built on Jean Crowder's bill, and then I updated it a year and a bit later when my amazing staff team found a way to build all the solutions from coastal communities into my private member's bill. That was in April 2017. I was on the verge of bringing all those solutions to the House to debate in December, when, as we will remember, the Liberals used some unused tactics to block and then basically vote down my bill to prevent it from even being debated and voted on. It was not a possible outcome I could ever have imagined. 
Because the transport minister said he was going to legislate on abandoned vessels, I really hoped he would just plagiarize my bill and bring my elements into his or at least recognize, when he tabled his own bill, on Halloween last year, that Bill C-64's proposed remedy of penalizing and fining for abandoned and wrecked vessels would not work unless he brought in the elements of my bill. They would deal with the backlog and also fix vessel registration. If we are going to fine an abandoned vessel, we need to know who the owners are to send them a fine or penalty. This has been said in the House before. 
The two pieces of legislation would have worked well together. Members could probably recite the pieces I proposed along with me. They would deal with the backlog by putting in place a pilot program, a vessel turn-in program, as has been done with great success in Washington and Oregon. It would be kind of a boat amnesty. People who did not know how to deal with a boat at the end of its life could get it out of the water where it could be safely recycled. We could create incentives for fibreglass recycling and piggyback on the government's avowed innovation agenda. Let us do something to help us deal with marine plastics and waste fibreglass. Let us find new markets so we can recycle and work with local salvage companies to deal with this mess. 
We need to fix vessel registration so boat owners can be more accountable and so the costs do not end up on the backs of taxpayers. And there is more.
I had all of those solutions from coastal communities and coastal governments in my legislation. When my private member's bill was killed by the government, I worked hard at transport committee to insert each of those solutions into Bill C-64.
To my great disappointment and despite the fact that so many witnesses said they wanted all those elements in the legislation, people on the ground like the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia, West Coast Environmental Law, local governments, marina operators, people who all endorsed the solutions from coastal communities that I proposed to amend the bill, both Liberals and Conservatives voted all of those amendments down.
Here I stand with my final attempt to improve this legislation and to bring the solutions that would help coastal communities into the bill. 
During the committee's study, we identified the fact that the government is not going to apply the fine and penalty system that is in Bill C-64 to government-owned property. We have a lot of examples on the B.C. coast and the Atlantic coast of government assets becoming abandoned vessels.
The member of Parliament for Courtenay—Alberni was involved in the removal of the vessel Laurier from Baynes Sound, which is a rich aquaculture shellfish area. A lot of jobs are dependent on it. Everybody was worried when the Laurier sank. It turned out that it was an old fisheries inspection vessel with many stories. It was also a Coast Guard vessel. It was a government asset that became an abandoned vessel.
On the east coast the Cormorant is an old Navy ship that has been languishing at the dock in Bridgeport for over 10 years. It too is an abandoned government vessel. A lot of my British Columbia colleagues will have seen the old wrecked BC Ferries vessel still with the logo on its side. It is a disaster. It looks like a ghost ship.
We have Coast Guard vessels, Navy vessels, the whole gamut on the coast of British Columbia. My amendment before the House proposed to close that loophole and make the fines and penalties equivalent, whether it is a government asset or a private vessel, in order to bring accountability and fairness as well.
From both a fairness perspective and an environmental perspective, this is our last chance to try to improve the transport minister's bill.
We take pride in the fact that this legislation is going to be voted on during the final days of this Parliament because of the tenacity of and pressure from the Nanaimo Port Authority, the mayor of Ladysmith, and Chief John Elliott of the Stz'uminus first nation. There has been a lot of co-operation and that has led to some success and has really put this issue on centre stage.
I am pleased to see the pan-partisan support for solutions on abandoned vessels. I remain discouraged that some of the solutions that were proposed by coastal communities, that would have dealt with the backlog, that would have worked with salvage companies to create jobs and innovate and recycle are not present in Bill C-64. None of those elements have any presence in the transport minister's bill. There still is a lot of work for us to do as a country to get this problem off the backs of coastal communities. 
Voting yes to my report stage amendment to remove the clause that would exempt the government from the same penalties that it is putting on private boaters would be the one thing that we could do in these final hours of this Parliament.
For the sake of coastal communities, for small businesses, for tourism, for the coastal environment, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her speech. Over the past three years, she has worked tirelessly to ensure that shipwrecks in Canada will be managed in a much more environmentally friendly way than they are now. In fact, right now, wreck management is not environmentally friendly at all.
The member worked hard to get the government to implement strict measures to ensure that resources will be available to recycle materials and identify wrecks. She wants the government to put money aside to manage wrecks across Canada. Finally, she worked to ensure that the bill is truly effective and not just a lot of rhetoric. However, there is still more work to be done.
The amendment that my colleague proposed seeks to delete clause 5 of the bill. Could my colleague elaborate on why that clause should be removed and how that would help the bill truly meet its objective of managing wrecks across Canada?
Sheila Malcolmson: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has been fighting to have the Kathryn Spirit removed from a drinking water lake in her riding since the previous Parliament. It is now six years, at least. Seven years, my goodness. We are tenacious. New Democrats are tenacious on this subject.
At the transport committee, we heard testimony that making government vessels subject to the same legislation that is meant to deal with private abandoned vessels would be really important. In fact, the manager of the Washington state program for abandoned vessels said:
 We do deal with larger vessels ourselves in Washington State. Just a couple of years ago we removed a 170-footer that was previously a military tug. We've done old scientific research vessels. We've actually done a couple of old Canadian Coast Guard vessels that were purchased by someone in Washington several years ago. 
One of the amendments we proposed in committee that was voted down was to have the government take some responsibility when it is selling off a government asset, to make sure that the person purchasing it has the means to look after the vessel until the end of its life. That was also voted down by the Conservatives and Liberals at committee, although we had strong witness testimony saying that we should take that route.
This is our last opportunity to agree with my amendment to close the loophole that would make government vessels also subject to Bill C-64, to deal with abandoned vessels.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again.
At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, my colleague asked that the bill compel the Minister of Transport to intervene and take all the responsibility for wrecks, rather than giving him the discretionary power to choose not to intervene.
There are thousands of wrecks across Canada and they pose a risk of pollution and place a heavy burden on coastal communities. We therefore want the minister to be compelled to intervene, which is not the case under Bill C-64.
Could my colleague comment on that?
Sheila Malcolmson: Madam Speaker, the basic structure of my predecessor Jean Crowder's legislation asked that the Coast guard be named the receiver of wrecks. That was supported by the Liberals when they were the third party in the previous Parliament.
They voted down that amendment that I moved, both my legislation and then also the amendment at committee. We do hear from the transport minister that he considers the Coast Guard now to be the de facto lead, and so it is not necessary to change it in legislation. However, we are not sure that that same interpretation might be taken up by a future government in this House.
 We still, with regret, are sorry that the Coast Guard has not been named the receiver of wrecks in legislation. We know that the good men and women of the Coast Guard, on the water, are doing yeoman's work to fill this gap, and under their own steam are taking a great deal of responsibility. We want to see them resourced and have that reflected in legislation.
Mrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there are many arguments in favour of this bill.
However, the most convincing argument is the fact that Canadians are calling for the measures we are proposing in this important bill. Many petitions have been tabled in the House in this regard.
The vast majority of owners are responsible and dispose of their vessels properly, but even a small number of neglected or abandoned vessels can create hazards with detrimental and costly impacts on local communities. These vessels are not just eyesores. They can pollute the marine environment and damage shoreline infrastructure. They pose risks to navigation and public health and safety. They can also harm industries, such as fisheries, aquaculture, and tourism, local industries that are dependent upon clean waters and that contribute nearly $40 billion a year to the Canadian economy.
Especially frustrating for responsible vessel owners and marine facility owners is the fact that abandoned and dilapidated vessels can take up valuable mooring space, and this can lead to economic losses to both property owners and local communities. Of course, these vessels can be extremely costly to clean up, ranging from a few thousand dollars for small boats to millions of dollars for larger vessels. That is why Bill C-64 proposes aggressive measures to prevent irresponsible owners from abandoning or neglecting their vessels so that the costs and perils of cleanup are not left to the taxpayers and local communities. This legislation is the next critical step forward in our $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, our comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy to improve marine safety, promote responsible shipping, and protect Canada's marine environment.
Our existing laws do not allow us to comprehensively address all of the risks posed by wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels, or problem vessels, including the ability to take direct action on such vessels. The wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act would significantly strengthen our ability to address problem vessels by fixing these legislative gaps. With this bill, the federal government would be able to take measures to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate hazards. Bill C-64 includes new measures to prohibit vessel abandonment, strengthen vessel owner responsibility and liability, and enhance federal powers on two vital fronts.
First, it would require that owners bear responsibility for their vessels. This includes prohibiting abandonment and not allowing vessels to become dilapidated or hazardous. Second and equally important, the proposed legislation would make owners liable for the cost of vessel cleanup and proper disposal. 
Furthermore, in conjunction with this bill, the government has started developing a national inventory of problem vessels, so that decisions about removing these vessels can be made based on evidence. This measure will also include a risk assessment, to prioritize the problem vessels based on the risk they present.
As part of the oceans action plan, we are also helping communities deal with the vessels that are polluting our coastlines and waterways. Canadians whose economic and cultural well-being are dependent on our water have expressed their desire to be involved in the solution. However, especially in rural areas, communities often lack the financial resources required to address the problem.
In May 2017, we announced the five-year, $6.85-million abandoned boats program. The bulk of funding being offered through this program, $5.6 million, is dedicated to helping partners such as other levels of government, indigenous groups, ports, and community groups to remove and dispose of the highest-priority abandoned or wrecked small vessels. In September 2017, we launched a complementary five-year, $1.3-million abandoned and wrecked vessels removal program. This initiative offers funding to assist in the removal of priority vessels and wrecks currently abandoned in federally owned small craft harbours. This program will benefit local commercial fishing industries and affected coastal communities. 
 Another way we are helping affected communities is by supporting education efforts. Not all vessel owners understand their responsibilities or are aware of their disposal options. Through the abandoned boats program, we are funding activities that educate small vessel owners on how to responsibly manage their vessels and how to make them more aware of available disposal options at the local level.
We are also supporting research on vessel recycling and environmentally responsible vessel design, which has the potential to, for example, further benefit communities through new business opportunities and reduce pressures on landfills.
I have spoken about some of the measures we are already taking to address wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels, but new legislation is needed. The critical way in which Bill C-64 would make a meaningful difference is through prevention.
The Government of Canada is determined to take action on vessels that cause hazards before they harm the environment and become a burden on taxpayers. By being proactive, we can avoid, reduce, contain or control problems before they become bigger problems and become even more costly to address. The bill proposes new authorities to prohibit owners from abandoning their vessels before the fact.
Federal officials would be empowered to order owners to take action on vessels that are dilapidated or may pose hazards and are therefore at risk of becoming abandoned or wrecked. They could also impose significant penalties for noncompliance. We will work with affected communities that best know their local environments to confirm whether and what hazards may exist with problem vessels or wrecks and to identify the most appropriate actions to be taken.
 Every effort will be made to thwart problems before our waterways are put at risk. Under the proposed legislation, vessel owners will be responsible for addressing their vessels or wrecks. When they are unwilling or unable to take action, we will be able to respond proactively and comprehensively thanks to the new powers contained in Bill C-64.
Even when we intervene, the owner will continue to remain liable for all costs and expenses.
This proposed legislation to address wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels will increase the strength and capabilities of Canada's marine safety regime. It will promote responsible shipping on Canada's oceans and in our inland waterways. It will also reduce pressures on our local communities that in the past were forced to take owners of dilapidated vessels to court and incur costly legal bills or pay the clean-up costs themselves.
Bill C-64 proposes to provide a powerful new tool to go after vessel owners who act irresponsibly, those whose carelessness and neglect put the health and safety of Canadians, the environment and the welfare of local economies at risk. Coupled with other actions we are taking under the oceans protection plan to address wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels, these proactive measures will go a long way in responding to the concerns raised by residents of coastal communities.
Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, would my hon. colleague care to comment on the report stage amendment that was brought forward by the New Democratic Party?
Karen McCrimmon: Mr. Speaker, it is really all about developing a coordinated long-term, integrated solution. The development of this legislation has taken time. Dealing with individual small pieces of the puzzle is not quite good enough. It needs to be integrated and we need to have a full spectrum, a full approach, multi-government, totally integrated that will serve us for the longer term.
Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, that is a fascinating answer from the representative of the transport minister. The amendment that New Democrats are proposing would have the effect of making Bill C-64 apply to government-owned assets. Right now the Liberals have written themselves an exemption and a loophole that we are proposing to remove.
If my Liberal colleague really does want to see a comprehensive and whole of government approach, as she just said, why would the government not vote for my amendment to close that loophole and make this legislation apply to government-owned assets as well?
Karen McCrimmon: Mr. Speaker, it is a reflection of the work that has gone into this bill and into the oceans protection plan as a whole. The bill is very well balanced. It is well balanced against what the federal government will do, the potential of what provincial governments can do, and what local communities can do. That balance has been achieved through a great deal of consultation and negotiation with all the stakeholders who are interested in this issue. Finding that balance and that long-term, comprehensive solution is the direction in which we are heading.
Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I have to respectfully disagree with my Liberal colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. The consultation we had at committee was that we wanted this law to apply to government vessels as well.
 The member for South Shore—St. Margarets asked in the committee if the legislation covered government vessels and the Transport Canada representative said, “This legislation does not cover government vessels.”
We then heard from probably a dozen witnesses who all said that this loophole should be closed. The mayor of Bridgewater talked about three different cases of vessels that were former government assets, or were government assets. They had been abandoned in his community and he wanted this law to apply to them.
 In what world does the government's intention to have a “comprehensive solution” fit with leaving out a major contributor to the abandoned-vessel problem, all the old Coast Guard vessels, the worn-out fishing inspection vessels, the navy vessels, B.C. ferries? Why would they not be applicable to this law, as is in the case in Washington state?
Karen McCrimmon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her advocacy and commitment on this issue. 
When governments try to build bills and legislation like this, the aim is to ensure it is comprehensive and integrative, but that it also respects various jurisdictions and does not relieve the owners of these vessels, whoever the owners presently are, from their responsibilities. Therefore, we want to ensure we can clean up these vessels, but we also do not believe it should be the Canadian taxpayers and local communities that end up paying for it. We want to ensure we have a way forward that will serve Canadians and their communities the best way we can.
 An integrative, comprehensive solution is the way forward. It is not always easy to make that happen. However, to have the taxpayer take on total responsibility for the actions of some irresponsible owners would not be the right way forward.
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations.
 This is an important bill. In fact, it was considered so important that it was passed at second reading without any debate so the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee could study it expeditiously. Now that the bill has been reported back, I am pleased that the chamber is taking some time to discuss its merits.
Since we are currently at report stage, I will comment on the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member forNanaimo—Ladysmith, but first I will discuss the bill in general.
I will readily admit, being from Saskatchewan, that prior to Bill C-64 being introduced, the issue of wrecked and abandoned vessels was one with which I was not overly familiar. I can honestly say that not once during the many round tables, constituent meetings, and town halls I have held in my riding over the last nine years has this issue ever come up for my constituents. Having said that, I completely understand why the bill is so important to members of the House who represent ridings along our beautiful coast lines.
As the Conservative Party's shadow minister for transport, I enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to learn about the concerns of Canadians regarding transportation matters, regardless of where they live.
 The transportation committee's study of Bill C-64 was very informative for me. I truly appreciated hearing from the many witnesses who provided their testimony and the many stakeholders who met with the members of the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee to impress upon us the need for legislation as there was currently a lack of legislative clarity around this issue. If given royal assent, the bill will create a new comprehensive act, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act. 
If enacted, this new act will do a number of things First, it will give force of law to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007. Second, the act addresses irresponsible vessel management and enhances federal powers to take action by the federal government. Third, the new act will give force of law to the International Salvage Convention, 1989.
The last point that I want to touch on with respect to this new act is that it will create an administrative and enforcement regime for vessels wrecked and abandoned on Canada's coasts with accompanying offenses and punishments.
Stepping back a little, by way of solutions for the issue of wrecked, abandoned, or dilapidated vessels off Canada's coasts, there are two schools of thought.
 The first is to make the federal government ultimately responsible for vessels that become wrecked or abandoned on our coasts. To pursue this solution would be at a tremendous cost to Canadian taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be the ones to bear the financial burden of someone else's irresponsibility. Also on this point, if the federal government were ultimately responsible for all wrecked and abandoned vessels, there would be the potential that Canada's coasts could become a dumping ground for vessels that would have reached the end of their life cycle.
The second school of thought proposes a solution that I much prefer. It puts the onus for the removal and/or clean up back onto the offending vessel's owner and makes he or she responsible for the cost to do so. This is a more conservative solution. Individuals should be responsible for their own actions and individual vessel owners should be responsible for their property. When someone abandons or causes his or her vessel to become wrecked, either through neglect or willful actions, that person should be responsible for the vessels removal or the cost of removing it.
Additionally, another benefit of this second solution is that it will discourage owners of aging and/or dilapidated vessels from considering abandoning a vessel in our waters. While we do not want vessels being abandoned or wrecked anywhere in the world, the responsibility of the Government of Canada is to Canadians, to our coastal waters, and to Canada's coastal residents.
I believe that the bill falls more in line with the second solution I just described. As a result, I believe that Bill C-64 would have a positive effect on our coastal waters by discouraging owners of aging and dilapidated vessels from considering abandoning their vessels in our waters while at the same time setting up a system whereby vessel owners can be held responsible.
The second solution which I have outlined requires some basic information in order to be a workable solution. That basic information includes knowing who the owners are of each individual wrecked or abandoned vessel. Presently here in Canada, we are lacking this vital information. In order for the bill to work, it will be necessary for the Government of Canada to know what vessels are currently abandoned in our waters and who owns them. While the bill would not automatically create that list, it would be a step in the right direction.
Building on that, the federal government will need to maintain a record of vessels entering our territorial waters. Once it does that, it will be able to hold vessel owners responsible either through vessel insurance or through legal proceedings. Therefore, it is critical that the Government of Canada have the necessary information on vessels for this strategy to work.
Our support for the bill should come as no surprise to the House. During the last Parliament, there were a number of attempts through private members' bills to change Canada's legislation with respect to abandoned vessels. However, most of those attempts fell more in line with the first solution which I outlined earlier in my remarks where the federal government would become responsible for the cost of cleaning up and removing abandoned vessels, meaning Canadian taxpayers would ultimately be on the hook.
Giving credit where credit is due, my former colleague, John Weston, saw the problem with these proposals but also heard from his constituents that the issue of wrecked, abandoned, and derelict vessels needed to be addressed. In June 2015, he introduced a private member's bill that would have made it a criminal offence to abandon a boat subject to jail time, with fines of up to $100,000, and authorized the minister to sell a vessel that is deemed abandoned. Mr. Weston's bill would have discouraged the behaviour of abandoning a vessel. Building on his private member's bill, the Conservative Party's platform in 2015 included the following commitment:
 A re-elected Conservative Government will commit to supporting MP Weston’s bill, and also set aside [funds]...to cover one third of the cost of removing priority derelict vessels. 
Additionally, the issue highlighted by Mr. Weston's private member's bill made its way into the Conservative Party's policy declaration statement. As amended at the May 2016 national convention, section 128 of our policy declaration statement says, “the Conservative Party stands by its commitment to facilitate rehabilitation or demolition of abandoned and derelict vessels.” 
Earlier in this Parliament, my Conservative colleagues and I were pleased to join with all members of the House to vote in favour of Motion No. 40, presented by the member for South Shore—St. Margarets. 
Finally, to address the report stage amendment that is currently before us, this amendment would remove clause 5 from the bill. I am concerned that removing this clause of the bill would unnecessarily contravene the principle of sovereign immunity which is recognized in Canadian legislation. For this reason, I do not support this amendment.
I want to indicate to all members of the House that my Conservative colleagues and I will be voting in favour of the bill. We need to protect our coasts and protect the Canadian taxpayer from the negative impact and cost of wrecked, abandoned, and derelict vessels.
Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague, who chaired our discussion at the transport committee and chaired it well. We had a good debate, and fantastic witnesses, whom we were pleased to have learned from.
If my colleague is characterizing my legislation, Bill C-352, as the first model she described where the taxpayer would end up picking up the bill for abandoned vessels, that was absolutely not the intention of my legislation. It was to designate a single agency that would be the first point of contact. It was very much like the Washington state model, where the whole focus is based on user pay. However, the key piece is that we need to be able to find out who the vessel owners are if we are going to send them a bill. 
My feeling is that if, in the 1990s, the Conservatives and Liberals had not done so much to undermine the vessel registration system with their successive cuts to front-line services, Canada would now have a way of tracking who the responsible owners of those vessels are. Now we have a huge backlog, which is the legacy of that time of supposed cost-cutting. It is a good reminder that cutting services and laying off public servants can actually do more harm than good.
This brings me to my question. Why did the Conservatives let the vessel registry fall into such disrepair, and why did they close the regional offices in B.C. that were doing the vessel data collection?
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work that she did when she joined the committee for this study. This issue is something that she is very passionate about, and I recognize that she had attempted to introduce a private member's bill to address this issue.
The issue of wrecked and abandoned vessels is a real problem for communities along Canada's coast. The number is in dispute, but suffice it to say it is estimated that there are hundreds of problem vessels in Canadian waters today. I know that many communities are afflicted with this issue, and that many of them are small with limited resources to deal with the problem. 
As for my colleague's question with respect to closing offices and not tracking these abandoned vessels, I cannot answer that question as I was not a member of Parliament back in the 1990s, which was the time frame she referenced.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, like the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we live with the fairly constant problem of derelict vessels along our coastline. They are a hazard. They are an eyesore. They present real risks to life and limb.
 I understand the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek thinks that we can always find the owners of these vessels and then get them to pay for the cleanup. I raised some of the problems with these abandoned vessels at committee. The hon. member will remember I attempted to put in an amendment for mandatory improvements to our registration system, and that vessel owners be required to have insurance. The response from the government members at the time was that we could probably deal with these issues through regulation. Therefore, I am going to vote for Bill C-64 with enthusiasm. I am pleased to see action finally happening on derelict vessels.
 However, I share some concerns with my friend from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. The bill is not perfect, particularly around the issue of being able to track the owners of the vessels and being able to go after those who abandon their vessels and make them pay for the cleanup. It tends to fall to the municipalities even to know where to take the vessels. We cannot recycle a fibreglass vessel. We are stuck with hauling it to the dump. There are very significant issues with this. 
I ask my hon. colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek to consider how we might be able to go after the vessel owners when we do not know who they are.
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, this issue was not one with which I was overly familiar prior to the introduction of this bill. However, after participating in the study, I know how very important it is to coastal communities, and the negative impacts that abandoned vessels have. They negatively impact tourism, and the enjoyment of the coasts and coastal waters by residents and visitors alike. They create problems for our marine life as well.
With respect to a solution, while this bill does not deal with the specific issue, I was pleased to see that the Government of Canada created a program to help support cleanup efforts by communities. I look forward to seeing what is going to be put into the regulations as well.
Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of Bill C-64. As a matter of fact, I am not just happy, I am thrilled to see this legislation before the House at report stage. After years of zero action by successive governments on the issues of abandoned and wrecked vessels, I am particularly happy our government is taking steps to respond to the pleas of coastal communities and address the issue that has plagued our coastlines for years.
The problem of abandoned and derelict vessels is sadly not an unheard of issue in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. From Bridgewater to Shelburne, or from Feltzen South to Woods Harbour, people abandoning vessels is not unheard of. It is also an issue not uncommon across the country, as many of my colleagues from British Columbia, the Great Lakes region, and many other areas can attest to. That is why I was happy to introduce my motion, Motion No. 40, in February 2016, which called on the government to develop solutions for our communities dealing with this ongoing problem. I am thrilled that the legislation we see before us today incorporates all parts of my motion. 
Our existing laws do not allow us to comprehensively address the risks posed by abandoned and derelict vessels or problem vessels. Bill C-64 would significantly strengthen our ability to address problem vessels by fixing existing legislative loopholes while also empowering the federal government to take measures to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate hazards. Bill C-64 would also finally make it illegal to abandon a vessel for someone else to have to deal with down the road. This is huge, particularly in rural communities.
One only has to look to the town of Shelburne in Nova Scotia to see the impact an abandoned vessel can have on a whole community. The Farley Mowat was brought into Shelburne harbour under the cover of darkness, tied up at the town's wharf, and left for three years. The town owns the wharf where the Farley Mowat was left, and had no recourse to deal with this rusting vessel taking up space. The Farley Mowat sank, was raised, flooded, had to be pumped out continually, took up to a quarter of the town's prime wharf space, and was an eyesore in an otherwise beautiful harbour. The day the government issued the removal order was a day of celebration in Shelburne. The crowds gathered, with bagpipes, media, and of course cake to celebrate the removal.
This bill would increase vessel owner responsibility and shift the burden away from Canadian taxpayers and toward a polluter pay approach. The wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act lays out a comprehensive legislative approach to addressing wrecked, abandoned, and hazardous vessels, from small pleasure crafts to large commercial ships, both foreign and domestic, in Canadian waters. In short, this bill would take us a big step toward ensuring the situation faced by the Town of Shelburne with the Farley Mowat is not repeated anywhere else in the country. Under our existing laws, the only two scenarios under which the government has the authority to take action on vessels are when a navigable waterway is obstructed or when the vessels present a pollution threat to the marine environment. That is it.
Our government knows that the majority of vessel owners are responsible vessel owners. In some cases, however, owners do not have the money to maintain, store, or dispose of their vessels. It is also not uncommon for individuals to take possession of a vessel thinking it has more residual value than it actually does, leaving them with an expensive piece of scrap. This bill would help us address the minority of owners in these kinds situations, as well as those who fail to properly care for and dispose of their vessels, so we can prevent them from becoming threats to our environment, local economies, and public health and safety.
Abandonment is seen by some as a low-cost means to deal with an unwanted vessel or the consequences of a wreck. It often comes as a shock to many Canadians to learn we have no laws to prevent this behaviour today. It is not illegal to abandon a vessel. I cannot emphasize that enough. Think about this: under the law, one cannot leave a transport truck at the side of the road, but one can leave a maritime vessel to rot at docks, beaches, or in harbours.
It is estimated there are hundreds of problem vessels in waterways all across the country. As some communities have learned first-hand, it can cost millions to clean up large vessels or wrecks. While these vessels pose particular risks to our coastal and shoreline communities, they are a cost to all Canadians. Taxpayers simply cannot continue to subsidize vessel owners whose irresponsible actions leave Canadians with a hefty cleanup bill. Costs to deal with these problem vessels are high, especially because we lack the authorities to proactively deal with them. 
If we could intervene earlier, remedial costs would be less expensive compared to having to respond after an incident occurs. That is why Bill C-64 is so important. It would fill the voids I have just described by broadening the scope of hazards to include risks to the environment, the local economy, health and safety, and infrastructure. This would allow us to address risks beyond pollution threats or obstructions to navigation in order to better protect coastal and shoreline communities, the environment, and infrastructure, while placing liability squarely on the vessels owners so as to reduce the burden on taxpayers. In our historic oceans protection plan, our government committed to developing legislation to help prevent the problem of abandoned and wrecked vessels from happening and to take corrective action, at the expense of the vessel owners, if removal and disposal of a vessel is required.
One of the key aspects of this bill is that it would require large vessels to carry insurance or other financial security to cover costs related to the removal of a hazardous wreck. This is one of the proactive measures that would be taken to ensure that in the event of a vessel becoming a problem due to negligence, there is a measure already in place to protect communities and taxpayers from long-term financial damage. This proposed legislation would also provide ministerial powers to order an owner to remove and dispose of a dilapidated vessel left in the water or on any federal crown property without consent, such as a federally owned small craft harbour. It would also empower the federal government to determine whether a vessel or wreck poses, or may pose, a hazard. This would be done in collaboration with local communities and other stakeholders. Upon determination that a vessel or a wreck is hazardous, the government would have significantly more authority to take measures to address the situation than it does currently.
With new strict penalties for non-compliance, Bill C-64 would introduce new deterrents, helping to prevent problem vessels from endangering our waterways, costing taxpayers, and burdening our local communities. The effectiveness of this proposed legislation in holding vessel owners to account relies on the ability to identify them. That is why our government is taking action to strengthen vessel licensing systems so that Canadians can be confident in our ability to address any problems that arise.
In addition, we are working with our partners to address the costs of problem vessels over the longer term. This includes exploring options to ensure that future cleanup costs are addressed by way of vessel owner-financed funds modelled on domestic and international polluter pays approaches. These combined initiatives would reduce the burden on taxpayers while also enhancing protection of the environment, restoring trust for local communities, and ensuring the safety of the general public.
I was pleased to sit in on the meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities during the study of this legislation, and I was pleased to see that all parties are in agreement that the time has come for the government to address the plague of coastal communities that are abandoned vessels. I ask all members of the House to support this legislation.
Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, my Atlantic colleague across the way has been a real partner coast to coast in pushing for abandoned vessel solutions. 
We are debating the report stage amendment, which would close the loophole that, right now, means that government-owned vessels are not subject to the penalties and fines proposed in this legislation. I want to take my colleague back to some of the conversations at committee.
It was the member for South Shore—St. Margarets who said, “I think this legislation covers government vessels, therefore, they're not allowed to become derelicts. Is that not boiling it down to the basic...? This legislation says you can't have an abandoned, derelict, or dilapidated vessel, so therefore the government could not have that. Is that not correct?” The Transport Canada representative said, “This legislation does not cover government vessels.” This is exactly the fix that I am proposing today, so I am very much hoping for my colleague's support, a yes vote, to this amendment, because it would close the loophole that the member for South Shore—St. Margarets identified.
There were also witnesses who talked about vessels in her riding specifically, and I visited some of them last summer. The Farley Mowat, the HMCS Fraser, and HMCS Cormorant were all government assets that were abandoned in her riding. David Mitchell, the mayor of Bridgewater, said in his testimony to the committee, “Yes. I think that does make sense....in order to bring the ship up. If you're going to divest yourself of a ship, as a government, you should make sure that the person who takes on that responsibility can.” 
I want to know from my colleague whether she is going to support my amendment, which would close the loophole and fix the problem that she identified in committee.
Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a second to thank my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her tireless work on this issue. I know that she has spoken in the House many times on the issue of abandoned and derelict vessels. As someone from a coastal community, I really appreciate all the hard work she has done on this.
With regard to her question on government-owned vessels, especially in my riding, she mentioned the Cormorant and the Farley Mowat. Those were actually not owned by the government at the time they were abandoned. They were sold, and therefore were not owned by the government when they were abandoned.
Second, I would like to point out that over the last couple of years, we have had four government vessels in my riding. We had the Farley Mowat, the Protecteur, the  Algonquin, and the Iroquois, all disposed of by the government in a sustainable, perfect way. I think that is the way the government should go forward, making sure that those vessels are looked after. That is what the government has done in the past two years.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the discussion. I know that both these members have done tremendous work on the issue of abandoned and derelict vessels.
It is an issue that strikes near and dear to me, as we had the MV Miner off the coast of Scatarie not that long ago. The burden fell to the Province of Nova Scotia on that particular wreck. It was a significant cost to a small province.
To the question that came from the NDP on this particular issue, I do not know what the answer is. Sometimes we ask questions knowing what the answer is going to be. Maybe my friend and colleague, who I have so much admiration for on the way that she has championed this piece of legislation, could enlighten us. On the amendment that support is being sought for, are there any cases of abandoned federal vessels? Are we making a law, or looking for a solution, for a problem that does not exist? Is there a history of the federal government abandoning vessels on various coasts?
Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Miner that he talked about, it was $15 million for the province to clean that mess up. That is money that could have been so much better spent somewhere else. I am really glad to see the legislation coming forward.
With regard to the member's question, to the best of my knowledge the government has not actually abandoned a vessel. It has sold them, and then people who have purchased them have abandoned them. That is where the challenge is. It is government vessels that my colleague has mentioned. Sometimes we see the Canadian Coast Guard logo on them. However, those are vessels that have actually been sold by the government, and then they are abandoned by the person who buys them.
Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to start by echoing words that we just heard from the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso. He used the word “admiration” in reference to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Of course I want to shout out as well to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets. This truly is a coast-to-coast-to-coast problem, and it is lovely to see people working together on such an important issue. I live in a coastal community and I will have something to say about that in a moment. 
The member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has been absolutely admirable, to use the member's words, in bringing this to the attention of government and in pushing this forward. We have had this issue, since at least 2005, on the front burner in our part of the world and, I am sure, longer in Atlantic Canada. Thankfully, we seem to be getting somewhere with it. I say, “somewhere”, and I indicate from the outset that we will be supporting Bill C-64. The amendment that my colleague has brought forward is something I would need to address as well because, while we support this bill, there is a real missed opportunity on so many bases here that it needs to be addressed in that spirit.
It never was brought to my attention, until quite recently, just how enormous this problem and challenge is. There are thousands of vessels, that is from the Canadian Coast Guard, that are derelict or abandoned from coast to coast. I have seen first-hand in my riding what that means. I have been with John Roe and gone through Cadboro Bay and again through the Selkirk Trestle area of the Inner Harbour of Victoria, and seen boats just sitting there, oozing pollution into the waterways; abandoned, in some cases, for years. For some reason, there seems to be this inertia, this inability to deal with an imminent danger that these boats have caused. Finally we have some tools that are on the table for our consideration.
One day, I had the opportunity to go with John Roe, who is the head of the Dead Boats Society, an admirably named organization, and, as well, the Veins of Life Watershed Society. He has been doing enormous work. He was appointed by the current government in a past life as a member of the chief review officer's people who do appeals under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I got to know Mr. Roe and I admire him. His tenacity resembles that of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. They are quite a team.
 I had the opportunity to go and see these boats one day. Because the government was doing nothing, citizens in the community stood up and, on their own, at great risk in terms of potential liability, took action in Cadboro Bay. I had the opportunity to go out one day with Mr. Roe; with Mr. Eric Dahli, who is the head of the Cadboro Bay Residents Association; with Ian Hinkle; and with Commodore Wilkinson of the Royal Victoria Yacht Club. I am very proud of the Ralmax Group of Companies, which donated its equipment and its people. Here were citizens on the beach, taking direct action to deal with this hazard, when the government would not come to the table and do anything after years of asking. I really salute the people with that spirit that has made Canada great, actually getting involved, getting their hands wet and dirty, and trying to deal with this problem. I had an opportunity to get a sense of what it means and that was just one of the many communities around Canada. Hence the bill and hence the need to address this. I want to start by saying that this problem is enormous.
Second, there is an enormous backlog of thousands of abandoned vessels that are polluting our waters. Just how is this particular bill addressing that backlog? There seems to be no effort, to do what the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith advocated in her private member's bill, to pilot some sort of turn-in program to safe recycling facilities, so we could deal with these issues. If there were a registration fee for boats, as in Washington state and other jurisdictions like Oregon, and elsewhere in Europe, that could fund the program.
The government likes to talk about how much this is costing, and it has made a pitifully small financial contribution. It should not have to spend money at all. In the long run, as the economists would say, the cost should be internalized to the people who created the problem in the first place. 
If I buy a boat, I should pay a fee. There should be a disposal charge, as we do with so many other consumer products. Why the government has not reached out to the provinces to assist in this regard is really beyond me. It would save money. It would save our environment, and it would get these eyesores off our coastlines all across the country.
The government's model essentially is to fine and ultimately to use criminal sanction, penalties and offences for owners of vessels. The problem with that model is that it will be very difficult to enforce. What if we do not know who the owner is, as is often the case? The registration number is filed off. We do not know who the owner is, and the vessel has been there for many years. How are we going to use the criminal process?
The Liberals talk about imprisonment and penalties of up to $250,000 and so forth. This is the old story of legislation involving the environment. We have fabulously large fines and we pat ourselves on the back for all the great action we are taking, but here is the punchline: We never get around to enforcing that. We never put in the resources, and we do not have the political will. It is nice, and it might scare a few people into action, but it really does not address the problem. 
This is the problem that my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith kept talking about in her private member's bill: the enormous backlog, the failure to have a vessel registration system for accountability purposes, the failure to establish a turn-in program to ensure recycling, and so forth.
I echo the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who spoke earlier. She used the phrase “legislative gaps”. There are so many legislative gaps in this program that I really wish the government had addressed them.
My colleague and the NDP made a number of amendments at the transport committee, almost all of which were defeated. One of them was about the vessel turn-in program that would deal with the backlog. The amendment about a dedicated fee to help cover the cost of vessel disposal, which Washington state has, was also defeated. There was also formalizing the role of the Coast Guard. It is like that Ghostbusters movie: “Who you gonna call?” Sometimes people can call the receiver of wreck, if they know who it is. People thought it would be simpler to just call the Coast Guard, but the Liberals seem to have abandoned that. They are committed to maybe doing something down the road.
The key “emperor has no clothes” issue here, which is addressed so clearly by my colleague's amendment, would be to deal with government vessels. I listened to the debate earlier today, and I was a bit confused because some people seemed to suggest that abandoned government vessels, such as old navy boats, ferries, and the like, would somehow be covered by the bill. I could not help noticing that the director general of environmental policy for the Department of Transport testified and said, “This legislation does not cover government vessels.” I am going to believe her, and I am going to say that there is a simple fix: deleting section 5 with the exclusions at issue. Let us make sure that we have a comprehensive bill to cover government and private vessels alike.
In conclusion, this is a good start. It has taken a long time. I am pleased it is here, and I will support it. It just could have been so much better.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, the speech of my hon. colleague, the member for Victoria, pointed out with great alacrity the benefits of this bill, but also the significant gaps. I would ask him to expand on two of those areas.
First, I cannot believe that we have legislation before the House introduced by the government that does not deal with government vessels. I would like him to expand on why he thinks that would be the case.
Second, for far too long, we, not only in Canada but around the world, have effectively regarded public areas such as our air, oceans, and waterways as public dumping grounds. There has been a lot of focus recently on ocean plastics, including at the recent G7 or G6 meeting, depending on your point of view. What a terrible problem that has been, as we have simply dumped things into the ocean. 
Does my hon. colleague think that we need to have stronger environmental measures that would protect our oceans, more meaningfully educate people, and prevent us from using that important eco-resource as nothing more than a dump?
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway had two insightful questions. The first was why the government would create any uncertainty about whether it is covered. My colleague is a lawyer. He would remember the crown liability and how it changed over time. The crown was never responsible under the law, until finally, in the seventies, the government made itself subject to the laws it passes. It is ironic that we are here again today.
There is no doubt about it. Section 5 says that “[d]espite any other provision of this Act...this Act does not apply” to vessels that belong to the Canadian Forces and to vessels “owned or operated by Her Majesty in right of Canada”. It seems pretty clear to me. It seems that the environment policy person from the department was entirely accurate.
On the second, more profound issue that my colleague raised, we are using our oceans as a dumping ground. It is the tragedy of the Commons, as people have it, and Canada is not immune. It happens all over the world. It strikes me that when one dumps stuff out at sea, there is the Canada Shipping Act about that kind of pollution. However, when we have the eyesores oozing pollution right on our beaches and citizens have to take action on their own because the government does not take any action to help, it really is another kind of tragedy.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, this legislation has an impact on my riding, which is very much a coastal riding. As the case is presented, there seems to be some logic there. 
I just want to ask if my colleague could share with the House whether there has been any history or recollection at all of a federal asset that was beached and had to be reclaimed in some other manner. Is there any kind of history of that? I asked the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets the same question.
Murray Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I share with the member for Cape Breton—Canso a concern about our coastal environment. I know he shares it deeply from his part of the world, as much as we do in ours.
I am not able to answer the specific question about the frequency with which we have government vessels, but I am sure it happens. Why would it not happen? It depends how broadly government vessels are defined. It could be a tiny little tugboat owned by the Coast Guard perhaps that is abandoned somewhere, or a fisheries inspection vehicle. We do not have to think of gigantic military ships in order to see the problem that could occur. A little fibreglass boat owned by the Government of Canada could well be within that circle. 
The fundamental question is, why would we have this conversation? Why is there an exemption? Why does the government not take responsibility for itself? Saying that there is no history of this, if indeed that is true, does not solve the policy question that underlies the question from the member.
Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to partake in today's debate, especially since I am speaking here today as a proud coastal member of Parliament who comes from a neck of the woods just south of the riding of the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. My riding, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and my colleague's riding together formed what was known as the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. 
This is a problem that coastal people have been dealing with for far too long, no matter what part of Canada they live in. Abandoned vessels not only pose threats to our environment, and in some cases threats to navigation, but they are an eyesore. They cause real harm to communities that are trying to build up an image of a sustainable community, a place tourists would want to visit.
I spent seven years working as a constituency assistant to former member of Parliament Jean Crowder in the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. As a constituency assistant, I was often on the phone with constituents who were outraged at the runaround they were getting and the jurisdictional finger pointing. They had gone to the municipality and to the regional district. They had gone to the port authority, to the province, and to the federal government. Every one of those agencies basically pointed at someone else, saying, “It's not our problem.” All those calls and the many years of problems building up prompted Jean Crowder to take action, and I will get to that in a moment.
I want to go over a bit of the history of how my particular community has experienced this problem. Right in the heart of my riding is lovely Cowichan Bay. I hope some members in the House get a chance to visit Cowichan Bay. It is a quaint, ideal little place on the coast. It has a great history of being a big industrial area that transformed itself into this great little community, which tourists come to every year by the droves.
We have had our ordeals with abandoned vessels. I will go back to the Dominion. The Dominion was a large Japanese fish-processing ship, which was towed to Cowichan Bay in 2007. The new owner of the vessel thought that he could buy it as an investment, sell it a few years later, and make a quick buck off it. Unfortunately, the Dominion stayed in Cowichan Bay from 2007 until 2013. It was filled with a variety of hazardous substances. It was subject to vandalism. There was the constant danger, whether from high tide or strong storms, of that gigantic ship coming loose off its mooring and plowing into other ships.
We had the SS Beaver, which was in such dilapidated condition that it sank in 2014. It still rests at the bottom of Cowichan Bay.
As a result of the lack of action, last year six derelict vessels were removed by the combined efforts of private companies. These companies were sick and tired of no government authority taking responsibility or having the resources to remove them. I want to recognize Western Forest Products, Western Stevedoring, and Pacific Industrial &amp; Marine for taking on that initiative as responsible corporate citizens of the area. It affects their livelihoods, too, and they had the means to get it done. However, it should not have come to that.
I also want to give great recognition to Lori Iannidinardo. She serves as the area director for Cowichan Bay in the Cowichan Valley Regional District. A lot of individuals have been involved in this fight over the years, but as the area director, she has had the unique position locally of bringing so many stakeholders together, along with public and community forums, and pushing for action. Lori and Jean worked together hand in glove to try to address this problem.
Now let me turn to the efforts of Jean Crowder in the 41st Parliament. She introduced Bill C-231 in 2011. She saw a way to improve her bill, and it ultimately turned into Bill C-638, which had its opportunity for debate and a vote at second reading at the tail end of the 41st Parliament.
 I will note that the Liberal Party at that time voted in favour of this bill, and among those members, there was the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and others. In fact, there are various ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and chairs of standing committees in the House today who back then supported this bill. We are happy to see Bill C-64 moving ahead, but as the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has so clearly laid out, there are a lot of gaps that her private member's bill certainly could have filled. 
I am happy to say that after years of advocacy, New Democrats and the coastal communities have really informed our work, and all that work is finally paying off. We are very proud that the action to clean up our coasts and waterways from abandoned vessels are finally under way.
I will now turn to the 42nd Parliament, the one we are in now, and the efforts of the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. The first version of her Bill C-219 very much built on Bill C-638, which was introduced in the previous Parliament. However, after a lot of consultation with different coastal organizations and coastal communities, she really took their feedback, which is evidence-based decision-making and evidence-informed policy-making. She incorporated their suggestions, because these are the people who are on the front lines, and introduced Bill C-352.
One of the greatest privileges we have in this place as private members is our ability to bring forward legislation on behalf of our communities. What is really unfortunate about last year is that the Liberals denied her the ability through the procedure and House affairs committee, and then the secret ballot that we had here in the House of Commons, to effectively advocate on behalf of her constituents and various coastal organizations in this place. We know it was the Liberals, because that is where the majority of the votes are coming from, who denied her the ability to at least bring this bill forward for debate and a vote. They deemed it to be non-votable, and argued that Bill C-64 covered all the conditions. In fact, we can see that her bill was actually filling in the gaps that are very apparent in Bill C-64. 
However, New Democrats do not give up when they face set backs, and so the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith tried to work at committee. She brought forward a series of amendments to Bill C-64 to actually strengthen the bill and make it reflect the conversations that she had had. We wanted to implement a vessel turn-in program, create a dedicated fee to help the cost of vessel disposal, and we wanted to formalize the Coast Guard's role. The Coast Guard's main role is to guard our coast, but I would argue it is not only to guard against smugglers but also to make sure that our coastal environment is safe, sound, and environmentally secure. She tried to make sure that we could copy Washington state's model, because we do not need to reinvent the wheel. We have many other jurisdictions, one right in Washington state, and we could basically borrow the best elements from its program and transpose them here in Canada. She also wanted to try and give the receiver of wrecks the responsibility and accountability to determine the owner. 
Every single one of those amendments was defeated by the Liberals in spite of all of the testimony that we had heard at committee. That is the real shame of this. The Liberals in the previous Parliament were fine to go along with the provisions that were included in this bill, but once they got into government, and flying in the face of the evidence they heard, they refused to go ahead with that.
The bill from the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was endorsed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities, the City of Victoria, the City of Nanaimo, the Town of Ladysmith, over 20 more local governments, the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce, Vancouver District Labour Council, and the BC Ferry &amp; Marine Workers' Union. These are organizations and local governments that deal with this problem and confront it on a daily basis. To have those kinds of endorsements behind the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith really speaks to her perseverance, and it is sincerely unfortunate that the government did not allow those.
I will conclude by saying that we are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will support Bill C-64, but I hope the government will at least listen to us and accept our amendment at report stage so that we can at least have some accountability for federally owned vessels, because that is a major loophole that exists.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for speaking to this bill on wrecks. There are some flaws in this bill. My colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith tried to fix these flaws by proposing a number of amendments that were unfortunately rejected.
 In Bill C-64, the Prime Minister committed to investing $260,000 to $300,000 to assess and remove shipwrecks in 2017, which is a completely ridiculous amount, and $1.25 million for the four following years. 
However, in my riding alone, dismantling the Kathryn Spirit has cost taxpayers $24 million, and it is not yet complete. This bill proposes $1.25 million over four years for thousands of wrecks.
Is that not a ridiculous amount? This is one of the flaws in this bill, in addition to all the other ones my colleague pointed out. Can my colleague speak to that?
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, my colleague underlines a key point we are debating today. The funds that have been provided by the federal government right now amount to a drop in the bucket. Transport Canada has identified thousands of abandoned vessels from coast to coast to coast. The resources it is allocating are simply insufficient, especially when we highlight the cost of removing one vessel. That is just to deal with the existing problem. 
The other problem going forward is we do not include measures in the bill to allow people to have a vessel turn-in program. Basically, for abandoned vessels in the future, people are going to keep on dumping their vessels. However, communities are where the costs ultimately land, and the costs are going to land on the federal government. We are trying to find a way to mitigate that going ahead. 
The member is absolutely right. The government is living on a different planet if it thinks its current budget is going to adequately deal with this problem which so many communities across our great country are currently dealing with.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been talked about for a number of years. In fact, we had a commitment in the last federal election to bring in legislation. This bill is yet another fulfilment of an election commitment that was given to Canadians. 
One does not have to live on the coast to appreciate the importance of our coastlines and waterways. The idea of having owners being held more accountable for their vessels is a positive thing in minimizing the potential negative impact on our coastal communities. 
I am a little confused by the comments of my NDP friend. Is he suggesting that the government should cover all the costs in their entirety, especially when there are issues surrounding the owners of the vessels or when a vessel has been abandoned?
Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, no, we are not suggesting that the government cover all those costs. What we are suggesting is that the government be realistic with the actual problem. Of course, we have always supported that the owners of the vessels are ultimately the ones who have to be responsible, but in some cases it is absolutely impossible to track down who was last responsible. As a result, these ships continue to stay in these waters, continue to dog coastal communities, and the current budget simply is not adequate.
All we are asking is for the federal government to acknowledge the reality, to realize it is the government with the most means to actually take some meaningful action. Is the hon. member suggesting that we should just let the problem stay as it is? I do not think that is acceptable to many members of Parliament in all parties here whose coastal communities simply do not have the budget, the resources, or the means to effectively deal with the problem. We are simply asking for an acknowledgement of the reality, and for some support of the well-meaning, well-intentioned amendments that we tried for the bill.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-64, which addresses the issue of the thousands of wrecks littering Canada. I want to commend my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for all the work she has done. She has been working for years to stop the abandonment of wrecks on our coasts and to help free coastal communities from the burden of dealing with wrecks.
My colleague proposed several amendments in committee. She originally had a private member's bill that targeted all wrecks. Her parliamentary privilege to debate Bill C-352 was denied by the Liberal government, which forced her to go through the special process of a secret ballot vote. Each member got to deposit a ballot in a box at the back of the House of Commons to decide whether my colleague would be allowed to debate her bill. The outcome, as anyone could guess, given the government's majority, was that she was blocked from speaking on her own bill. The government simply refused to grant her time to debate the bill in the House, on the pretext that the government's bill covered all the same ground as her own. However, the two bills could have been complementary, as I will explain today.
My B.C. colleague's bill addressed a number of issues. Now, at report stage, she is moving an amendment that reads as follows: “That Bill C-64 be amended by deleting Clause 5”.
This amendment would remove the exemption for state-owned ships. Bill C-64 does not currently apply to state property.
We want all vessels owned by the government, by all the departments, including military vessels and other assets belonging to the Canadian Coast Guard, to be governed by this bill. The fact that they are not is ridiculous. Washington State has similar legislation that includes abandoned state-owned vessels.
We hope the government will support the amendment moved by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
I rise in the House today because the Kathryn Spirit ran aground in Lake Saint-Louis, a drinking water reservoir, seven years ago, and the people of Beauharnois and the greater Montreal area have been trying to get something done about it ever since.
Groupe Saint-Pierre, a private company, acquired the vessel and towed it to the shores of Lake Saint-Louis at Beauharnois to dismantle it and sell the scrap metal. The people of Beauharnois and the mayor at the time were extremely concerned about that.
The current mayor continues to work to ensure that the ship is dismantled by the end of the year. Seven years later, we are beginning to feel some relief, but as long as the ship is still there then we are no further ahead.
Managing this ship has been very complicated from the start. It was not clear who to talk to about it. We had to juggle between Environment Canada, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Coast Guard under Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Every department under the Conservative government at the time passed the buck. In 2015, the Liberals took over the government, but it is still the same story, six of one and half a dozen of the other. The two successive governments were unable to grab the bull by the horns to ensure the safety of the drinking water reservoir. The population was scared because for the seven years that the ship has been there, there have been a number of freeze-thaw cycles. The ship has taken on some water through the pipes and as a result of being trapped in the ice over the winter. 
What is more, there have a number of alarming situations that required last-minute interventions to patch up the ship to ensure that the water in the ballasts did not infiltrate the engine room, which contains oil. We asked many times for the list of pollutants remaining on the ship and up until very recently we still did not have it. Even the fire department of Beauharnois, Châteauguay, and surrounding areas still did not have that list on April 10, 2018, when a fire broke out and six fire departments were called to deal with it. Though somewhat ironic, it is mostly very stressful for all those who live near this wreck.
The bill before us does not meet all of the demands of Beauharnois and the surrounding coastal municipalities. That is why the NDP has been fighting for years to get a bill that better manages shipwrecks.
This bill is definitely a step in the right direction, but there are still some problems that need to be addressed, particularly the backlog of thousands of wrecks abandoned off Canada's coastlines. On top of that, the bill fails to introduce a vessel registration system for accountability, nor does it establish a vessel turn-in and recycling program. I was very proud to support Bill C-352 introduced by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, which fills the gaps in the government legislation.
Getting back to the Kathryn Spirit, Groupe St-Pierre moved the vessel to the banks of Lac Saint-Louis in August 2011. Since the provincial and federal governments never authorized the company to dismantle the ship on the water for environmental reasons, it was never able to move forward, so it sold the wreck to a Mexican company a few months later.
 Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada kept passing the buck back and forth between 2012 and 2015. The ministers responsible just wanted to wash their hands of the problem. Despite our repeated calls, the Mexican company was unable to answer our questions. There was a language barrier as well as the time difference. It eventually stopped answering our questions and our calls altogether.
Then there was dithering and continual delays in obtaining answers from the Ministers of Transport Canada and Environment Canada concerning hazardous substances still on board. It was never-ending. It took years to get answers even though such access to information requests usually take about two months. Then we asked that there be only one party responsible, the Canadian Coast Guard, but the Liberals refused.
Ultimately, we want to know the location and condition of all such ships in Canada. That is why we are asking that registration errors be corrected and, as my colleague proposed at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, that the administration do more than just the bare minimum. Companies must fully respect the law and its spirit to ensure the protection of citizens, waters, and our environment.
In the case of the Kathryn Spirit, the lack of registration prevented us from having clear information about the Mexican company that had taken over the vessel. A minimum of information was enough to have senior officials say that the vessel had not been abandoned and that the company was still responsible for it. This matter was bungled from start to finish.
In 2013, it seemed that contaminants were discharged and citizens were worried. In the end, it was a real shemozzle and the government said that most of the fuel had been removed. In 2016, the vessel was listing and cables were added. The government is taking a wait-and-see approach in this matter.
The government took action when there was a fire and finally realized that there had never been a response plan, even though the government had offered $24 million to the private company working on the boat. There were a number of shortcomings.
The bill does not allocate enough money to manage a single vessel like the Kathryn Spirit. The government is allocating $1.25 million over four years, which is completely ridiculous.
I hope that the government will review this bill and accept amendments, including the one proposed today by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, in order to get this right and manage abandoned vessels in Canada. 
Gord Johns: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her continued advocacy for our oceans and for this issue.
Clearly, the member is frustrated. She has seen the government delay. It does not have a plan to deal with the Kathryn Spirit. She has raised this multiple times in the House. The government has not adequately resourced the department to deal with it, never mind the fact that there are so many gaps in this legislation. It would leave a situation like the Kathryn Spirit unresolved.
 The government has not dedicated enough money to deal with it. It still has not figured out a system, like Washington state, where a fee is contributed to dealing with these issues as they surface. In is a big gap in this legislation if the government cannot identify who the boat owner is.
Maybe the member could speak about the gaps with respect to the amendment my good colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, presented to the House to deal with this very important issue. It should have been looked at and considered by the government.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, there are indeed some gaps. We still do not know who owns these vessels because they are no longer registered. This is why my colleague from Ladysmith—Nanaimo presented a number of amendments to complement the Liberal bill.
My colleague proposed amendments intended to make governments more accountable; adopt the Washington State model, which would change the wait time for communities from two years to 90 days; set fees to help cover the cost of dismantling the vessels, like in Washington, where owners are required to pay to dismantle the vessels; and free taxpayers from this financial burden. Essentially, we should enforce the polluter pays principle. 
The owners of the Kathryn Spirit have never been found. Groupe St-Pierre is the one that brought the Kathryn Spirit  to the shores of Beauharnois, but it is not responsible for the wreck. On the contrary, Groupe St-Pierre is being given $20 million in taxpayers' money to continue to dismantle the ship, when it is the one who brought it to Beauharnois to get rid of it. Nevertheless, Groupe St-Pierre was awarded two successive contracts through a tendering process. Actually, one of the contracts was awarded to the company without a tendering process. Then, coincidentally, Groupe St-Pierre and a consortium were offered the dismantling project following a tendering process. This whole story is completely ridiculous from beginning to end.
We are at the point where we just want these wrecks gone without any negative impact on drinking water. Obviously, the government has fallen short when it comes to the administration and financial management of projects to ensure that these ships are recycled responsibly.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would be quite pleased with the way the government has dealt with this issue. We have first of its kind coastal legislation to protect our waterways and coasts. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in protecting our oceans and waterways.
Would my colleague not acknowledge, at the very least, that within the legislation we are holding owners of vessels more accountable for everything from removal to clean up and that this is a strong positive step forward?
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the government member claims, there are still a lot of problems with this bill.
For example, it still does not impose any fees to help cover the cost of removing abandoned vessels. The Liberals also rejected the proposal to implement a vessel turn-in program to help deal with the backlog of thousands of abandoned vessels along Canada's coastline.
The government invested $1.25 billion over four years when the Kathryn Spirit alone will cost $20 million to dismantle. That is completely ridiculous. The Liberals are talking a lot of nonsense and are not fulfilling their responsibilities. The bill gives the minister discretionary power, but it does not compel him to intervene and fulfill his responsibilities.
Gord Johns: Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-64, an act respecting wrecks, abandoned, dilapidated or hazardous vessels and salvage operations. 
Before I get started, I have to give a huge shout-out and thanks to my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her perseverance and commitment to this issue. Before she was in the House, she was the chair of the Islands Trust. She brought communities together on this issue, because it is so important. She followed the great work of Jean Crowder, who represented the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. These are Vancouver Islanders who understand these issues from the grassroots. They understand the impact abandoned and derelict vessels have on our coastal waters and the impact they have on the local economy, ecology, and way of life. I appreciate their efforts.
In my riding, there has been much support for Bill C-352 put forward by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Qualicum Beach and Parksville have been very strong advocates for this bill, as has the Regional District of Nanaimo. 
There was an incredible accident in our riding in Deep Bay. Three boats had been listing for over a decade. They were abandoned derelict vessels. The former member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North, a Conservative colleague, promised for 10 years to remove those vessels, but they sat there right through until the 2015 election. That same member voted against the bill Ms. Crowder put forward in the last Parliament. He said that he wanted more of a Washington state model. He was the party whip for the Conservative government and a previous cabinet minister, so he could have asked his government to pursue legislation based on the Washington state model. Ms. Crowder would have welcomed an amendment to support that model, because we know it works. He sat idle.
A boat sank, and when the divers went down, they found two more boats at the bottom. The communities desperately wanted the Silver King and the Sir Wilfrid Laurier removed, because they were threatening 60 jobs adjacent to that listing boat. They were threatening the Deep Bay Marine Field Station of Vancouver Island University, which has a centre for shellfish research they have invested $9 million in. We raised this concern with the federal government, and the Liberals sat idle, despite major storms going through. 
We then decided to collectively come together: me; the MLA; Chief Recalma, of Qualicum First Nation; Bill Veenhof, from the Regional District of Nanaimo; and the adjacent shellfish company that was going to be immediately impacted. In fact, it would have been shut down for a year if any of the bunker fuel had been released from those derelict and abandoned boats, and the VIU research facility would have been shut down.
We decided to collectively come together with community members and go out on a boat and invite the media. I want to thank CHEK 6 news, CTV News Vancouver Island, and the Parksville Qualicum Beach News, because they came out, and it was their reporting that made the difference, with our community standing in solidarity. The former minister of fisheries and oceans, my friend from Nunavut, responded at that point, when he saw the pressure, and the Silver King was removed. The Liberals were still hesitant to deal with the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This boat was a previous crown asset. 
Again, my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith put forward amendments to strengthen the bill to protect our coasts. One of the amendments was to prevent crown assets and assets seized and resold by the government from becoming abandoned vessels by legislating terms and conditions of sale and disposal. It sounds reasonable, but the Liberals rejected it.
On the B.C. coast, there are abandoned vessels from all over the place that still bear a government logo, whether they are from BC Ferries or the Coast Guard, such as the Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The Atlantic coast has a number of people with great intentions who are still purchasing surplus navy vessels, but they become great liabilities. The communities of Shelburne and Bridgewater wanted those conditions in the bill as well, and they were rejected. We raised awareness about the Silver King and the Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and we are grateful that the government responded at that point. I want to thank it for that, but it took a lot of pressure.
This could have been avoided. We could not even figure out who was responsible, because in this bill, the government still had not identified the Coast Guard as the sole receiver of wrecks. We were running around speaking to the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Environment Canada. We were getting turned around, and no one was taking responsibility. That still has not been resolved in this legislation.
I will turn to some of the opportunities. When I was first elected, my colleagues from Vancouver Island and I banded together and went to the Minister of Infrastructure and asked that BC Ferries be eligible for the Building Canada fund, because under the previous Conservative government, it was not eligible. BC Ferries made that loud and clear. Despite the Conservative member from Vancouver Island North saying that it was eligible, it had been rejected on every application, because, it was told, it was not eligible. 
We were grateful to the Minister of Infrastructure for changing the requirements and allowing BC Ferries to be eligible for the Building Canada fund. That has resulted in $62 million for BC Ferries, which Mark Collins, the CEO, told me when I ran into him in Vancouver. He was so grateful. He told me that he wanted to come to our riding and listen to my thoughts and concerns with respect to BC Ferries and the way he can support our communities. He also wanted to express his gratitude for our going to Ottawa and working with the government to create the eligibility that has supported all ferry users in British Columbia.
While he was there, I was able to talk to him and showcase Port Alberni and the Alberni Valley as a great opportunity for the BC Ferries experience program so that they can promote each other and work collectively to support the tourism economy. 
We also talked about the incredible opportunity we have as the deepest port on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which is heavily underutilized. He clearly expressed to me that shipyards are coming close to capacity and that he wants to find ways we can work together. He wrote a letter of support after visiting the port. He wrote:
 BC Ferries is planning to invest $3.5 - $4 billion over the next 12 years in infrastructure and new vessels in addition to our anticipated $150 million annual spend on ship repair. The biggest constraint we face supporting our fleet is the scarcity of dry docking in British Columbia. Currently, two-thirds of our fleet of 35 vessels can be docked at just two facilities. Those facilities are busy and the opportunity for increased dry dock capacity in BC will be of great interest to BC Ferries and other coastal marine customers. 
He supports the Port Alberni Port Authority and its hope for a new floating dry dock. The reason I bring that up is that it is an economic opportunity for people on the west coast to create more shipbuilding and maybe a place where we can work with abandoned and derelict boats. We would like to see the government work with all levels of government, the federal government and the federal Liberals, so that we can create those jobs and support a dry dock in our community.
After years of advocacy, the New Democrats are proud that our pressure is finally paying off and that we are seeing some movement on this bill, although it misses the mark on many things. It does not support a vessel turn-in program modelled on the cash-for-clunkers program for vehicles, which has been successful in many provinces. Without a turn-in program, we will not be able to deal with the backlog, which is hundreds of boats. We could create a dedicated fee to help cover the cost of vessel disposal, based on the Washington state model, which is an owner-financed fund dedicated to vessel removal that successfully took the costs off taxpayers, which is what we want.
Where I live, it is clear that most of these abandoned derelict vessels cannot be traced back. We do not know who the owners are. They change hands repeatedly. There is a housing issue where we live, and many people are living on derelict boats, in terrible conditions. These boats are being sold within the community, and people do not know who owns these boats. They live on them literally until they sink. We do not want to see a situation like in Deep Bay, where a boat is listing and threatening the environment and the local economy, and then when it does sink and we go to the bottom, we find three more.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the legislation before us is somewhat historic in terms of ensuring more accountability for vessel owners to ensure that we have cleaner coastal regions and waterways. It is very progressive in holding more owners accountable so that we will see a positive difference. 
Combine that with what I believe is a significant commitment by the minister responsible and the government to see literally hundreds of millions of dollars in the last couple of budgets going toward the protection of our oceans, rivers, and the environment as a whole.
Compared to the previous 10 years, would the member not agree that in the last two years, this government has accomplished a great deal? As the Prime Minister says, we can always do better, but at least we have taken a significant step forward with money and legislation.
Gord Johns: Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. We hear from one side about hundreds of millions of dollars, but it is $1.25 million over four years. It is not hundreds of millions of dollars the Liberals have committed to this program.
 The member speaks about the oceans protection plan. Under the Conservatives, we saw a steep decline in fish where I live, a record-breaking decline. In the Somass River and in the Clayoquot, they at least had some funding from the Conservatives. Right now they get nothing from the coastal restoration fund. What are we getting? It is a gift of $1.25 million a year. That is absolutely appalling. This is not even a band-aid. It is absolutely disrespectful to say to coastal communities that this is leadership, coastal protection, and moving forward with progressive policy.
My colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith brought forward 13 amendments. The Liberals shot down 12 of them. They were progressive amendments. They would have taken the burden off the taxpayer. They would have corrected issues when we did not know who the owner of a boat was, because there would be a fund to take care of that. Just going after boat owners when we do not know who they are most of the time is not responsible. That is not progressive policy.
Sheila Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing some resistance from the Liberal side to the idea of our amendment, which we are debating right now, which would close the loophole that prevents government-owned vessels from having the same penalties and fines applied to them that private vessels are subject to, on the basis that this is a phantom idea. For members who have joined the House recently, we named about four different vessels, in the town of Bridgewater alone, that were government assets that became abandoned.
I wonder if my colleague is familiar with the story of the MV Sun Sea. It was a boat that came to Canada's shores carrying refugees. The Canada Border Services Agency took legal custodianship of the vessel. It tried to sell it but could not find a buyer. That was in the news very recently. The government now has spent close to one million dollars just to store and maintain the vessel, let alone dismantle it.
Closer to home, in my colleague's riding, the Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a famous vessel that sank and had to be pulled out. Again, it was a government asset. It was an RCMP patrol vessel. It was a Royal Canadian Navy vessel. It was a fisheries patrol ship and then finally a fisheries protection vessel. That is an example of a crown asset that then became a pollution risk in my colleague's riding. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.
Gord Johns: Mr. Speaker, when I think about the Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it was a perfect example of our not being able to identify who the owner was. There was a great story in The Vancouver Sun. When we traced it back, the individual who owned it had just come out of jail. We traced it to that source, but we still could not confirm it. It was very hazy. 
This is an iconic Canadian vessel. Canadians were proud of this vessel, but they certainly were not proud of it being in Deep Bay, listing, ready to take out 60 jobs, and sitting on the bottom of the ocean, which would have cost millions of dollars to go after. The Liberals dropped the ball. They could have fixed this. The government should be taking responsibility for the boats it sells.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  Is the House ready for the question? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Question. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota):  In my opinion the nays have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29 the division on the motion stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
Firearms Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 18 consideration of Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1. 
Mr. Mark Holland (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to talk once again about the important public safety measures being brought forward in Bill C-71. At the top, I want to talk about the tone of this debate and some of the messages and rhetoric.
 It is important we have that push, that thrust and parry that occurs in debate and on issues. However, unfortunately my inbox has been filled with enormous hate, including death threats over this issue, which is deeply disturbing and entirely inappropriate. Therefore, we really have to watch the tenor of our debate. This is about public safety and about working together to make our communities safer. We may have differences in approach, but those kinds of messages and death threats certainly have no place in our public discourse, and have been enormously disappointing.
Unfortunately, we have a serious problem in Canada with gun violence. Only a brief couple of weeks ago, at the Pickering ribfest, a shooting terrorized our community. This is a very peaceful event that has gone on for a long time. Only months earlier, there was a horrific multiple homicide then suicide, a domestic violence situation. That is emblematic of what we have seen over the last number of years where Canada has had a decrease in the crime rate overall, but the gun violence in all of its forms has been on the incline.
 Some have said that it was low when we look back at 2012, so the fact it has gone up one-third is no big deal because it was so low before. A one-third spike in gun violence, when we had made such progress to drive those numbers lower, is a big deal. It is a big deal because a one-third increase represents a massive number of new victims, people who should not have been victimized, people for whom we could have avoided that situation. Unfortunately that increase in violence has manifested itself in a number of different ways. It has happened with guns and gangs, but tragically it has happened in domestic violence situations. Not often enough do we talk about the increases that have also occurred with respect to suicides. 
Therefore, we need to look at this issue from every angle. We have never held out that Bill  C-71 is a panacea that will solve all the problems of gun violence, but it is an important part of a broader strategy. 
I also want to talk about the fact that when we introduced everything during the election campaign more than two and a half years ago, we said from the outset that we wanted to work with law-abiding gun owners to ensure the measures were as little an imposition on them as possible, while at the same time achieve our public safety objectives. 
Let us talk about what we ran on in the platform and what is here today. One of the things we said in the platform, and this has been done in the United States since the 1970s, was that when a gun shop sold a gun, it would have to keep a record of that weapon. It has to keep a record of who of sold it to. Some concerns were raised by gun owners and members of the House that this information might be misused. Therefore, we made a concession in the platform, which is in the bill, that someone had to have lawful access to get that information. In other words, the only way that information could be obtained from a gun store was if it would help an investigation and help catch a criminal. It would allow a police office to go to a gun store, say a gun was involved in a crime, and ask who the gun was sold to. The only way the officer could get that information would be if it could be demonstrated, through judicial access, that in fact that information would help solve a crime. It is behind a firewall.
Unimaginably, the Conservatives have called this a “gun registry”. That is a piece of fantastical imagination and is on the level of believing in unicorns. The reality is that this information can only accessed by police to solve crimes. To describe it in any other way is frankly dishonest and it does this debate no service. 
Another thing we ran on as part of our platform in the campaign was that when people were transporting a prohibited or restricted weapon, they would require a free permit to ensure they had authorization to take weapon wherever they would be going. a free permit. In this instance we are not talking about hunting rifles or shotguns; we are talking about high-powered semi-automatic rifles and handguns. We are talking about a class of weapon that is very strictly controlled.
 We listened to the gun community. We listened particularly to sports shooters and others. They said that if they were taking it to their gun club directly and they were pulled over by the police for something else, then it would be self-evident they were going to their club and they should not require that authorization to transport. We thought that was a fair point, so we changed what we put in the platform and made that concession so it would only be required when they took their guns somewhere other than a gun club.
 Some people have suggested that it should only be a person's own gun club, but we heard from sports shooters. They said that would be a great imposition. When they are competing in tournaments, they are not going to given the opportunity to visit multiple locations. They will have to get a permit all the time, which would be an enormous imposition for people who were doing this as a sport, as an example, or for Olympians. This is why we allow people within the province to drive to any gun club and not require an authorization to transport. 
However, in the fewer than 10% of instances when people are taking their guns somewhere other than a gun club, then they are required to get a free permit to demonstrate they are taking them where they should be taking them. By the way, the permits can be emailed to them and they can show it as a PDF. Some people asked why they should do that. There are a couple of very important reasons for this.
 If we look at the rules today and do a hot map of any city in Canada, not having that provision means a person can have a prohibited or restricted weapon in the car at all times and be able to explain to police that he or she is taking it somewhere. The individual is allowed to take it to so many places that effectively there is no restriction on driving around with a handgun, a high-powered semi-automatic rifle, or even a fully automatic prohibited weapon in their car.
 We have heard from the OPP and the RCMP, and certainly we have heard very clearly from the chiefs of police, that there have been many instances where police officers have pulled people over for one offence and have noticed a prohibited or restricted weapon in their car. The individuals in question are not going to a gun range, the officers cannot figure out where they are going and there is nothing the officers can do. Therefore, police say it is important to have that authorization to transport, which is free and can be provided as a PDF. It provides an important public safety instrument. By the way, again, that represents only less than 10% of the cases. It certainly does not make sense to me that people are sending me death threats over this kind of measure.
As well, the bill would do a couple of other important things. It was actually Jason Kenney, a former member of the House, who talked about the need to have expanded background checks. The reason for this is that unfortunately in a five-year window, somebody's violent history may not be captured. I have spoken in the House before about instances where unfortunately, and all too often, women trapped in violent relationships do not report that violence and do not come forward. It can drag on for years. When the woman finally escapes that relationship, the individual in question can go in and buy guns legally because his violent history with women has not been reported on for more than five years. That person is then able to purchase weapons and unfortunately shoot his former partner dead. It has happened far too many times in the country.
 Sadly, gun violence occurs with both registered and unregistered weapons. The measures contained in the bill, and there are a lot more than I have time to address today, do important public safety good to ensure we are a bit safer.
This is one part of the puzzle. We are putting $100 million a year into the guns and gangs strategy to build up our strength at a local community level, to make our communities stronger and more resilient against gun violence. The work we are doing to improve the situation at the border, of the illegal transportation of weapons into this country, is so vital. We saw so many cuts to CBSA and to the RCMP. We are restoring those cuts, ensuring that strength is present.
It is part of an overall strategy to make our communities safer, while ensuring we have as little imposition as possible on those who use firearms responsibly.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, there are so many things to challenge. There is a requirement to register every sale, every firearm, registrar the person buying, register the seller, register the PAL number, and keep the information for 20 years. Therefore, I do not know how those guys can pretend this is not a registry. I want to ask the member something specific about that.
Section 102 of the Firearms Act allows for firearms officers to review, seize, or copy any records, kept as a requirement of a business licence, without a warrant. Under the bill, businesses are required to keep those records. How does the member square that circle? It is already in the previous legislation that firearms officers can demand that information without a warrant. The Liberals are claiming that they are going to need a warrant to go into businesses to get the information that will basically form the new registry.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, the member can imagine the circumstance today where there is no requirement for a store to keep a record of who they sold a firearm to. There is no requirement, but this bill would change that. I think that makes good sense, because most stores, I would say the vast majority, do keep records, but for criminals thinking of buying a gun to commit a crime, are they going to go to a store that keeps records or are they going to go to a store that keeps no records? By the way, when a person is committing domestic violence and has no connection to gangs, they would go and buy—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Mark Holland:  Mr. Speaker, does the member know how many people have been shot and killed with legally acquired firearms where there was a history of violence? And by the way, her name is Lindsay Wilson. She was in my riding and she was shot and killed. 
These situations are real, and our need to protect women in this country is real. This bill would do important public safety good, and it deserves an honest and real debate.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. member will have three minutes and 15 seconds coming to him when we resume debate after Oral Questions.

Statements By Members
Live-in CaregiversMs. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, QD): Mr. Speaker, the little-known live-in caregiver program fails to protect female foreign workers who come here to work as domestic help. They come here in the hope of making a bit of money and getting permanent resident status after two years. We do not see them in public, as they generally stay in their employer's home. They do not necessarily know their rights, they do not always know our language, but they are prepared to do anything to help their family. They rely on the goodwill of a single employer, without whom they can be deported from the country. Hon. members will agree that the employer therefore has excessive power over these women. These conditions create countless cases of abuse, violence, unpaid work, intimidation, and harassment. I am therefore honoured to sponsor a petition launched by the Centre international de solidarité ouvrière calling on the federal government to take action to guarantee better working conditions for these women. I urge everyone to sign the petition immediately and to be the voice of these women, who far too often do not have a voice.
London West Youth CouncilMs. Kate Young (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to work with the London West Youth Council, a group of brilliant and inspiring young people.
They volunteered their time collecting non-perishable food items for Anova, an organization that provides shelter for abused women and their children. They filled 23 large bags with breakfast items, which were then delivered.
I am excited to continue to work with my youth council, and to show them that there are many ways to be leaders of today.
Their passion and skill inspire me, as does the positive change they are making in our community.
Cariboo—Prince GeorgeMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, summer is just two days away, which means communities in my riding are gearing up to host visitors from around the world at our world-class events. This Canada Day, the historic gold rush town of Barkerville will celebrate its 150th anniversary of the very first Dominion Day ever.
Summer also means the start of my second favourite season, rodeo season. This Canada Day long weekend, my home town of Williams Lake will host the 92nd anniversary of the greatest show on dirt, the world-famous Williams Lake Stampede. Visitors flock to the Cariboo from far and wide to enjoy world-class hospitality and several days of top rodeo stars from across North America competing in premier rodeo events. Just a couple of weeks later, just up Highway 97, Quesnel will be hosting Billy Barker Days and the 52nd annual Quesnel Rodeo.
“It's the ropes and the reins, and the joy and the pain and they call the thing rodeo.” Yeehaw.
Indigenous Peoples DayMs. Yvonne Jones (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize June 21 as Indigenous Peoples Day. National Indigenous Peoples Day is a day to celebrate and recognize the ongoing contributions of first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples throughout Canada. This year, Canadians across the country will celebrate and acknowledge the rich culture, heritage, and contributions of indigenous peoples, and what they have contributed to our country, Canada.
 On June 21, from coast to coast to coast, Canadians are invited to participate in events such as powwows, sport competitions, and musical performances, all that will highlight the rich and distinct heritage of indigenous peoples in this country. It is a day and an opportunity for all of us, both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, to learn about our rich history, traditions, and cultures of indigenous peoples. It is a critical step for all of on the journey of reconciliation. 
I wish all a wonderful Indigenous Peoples Day in Canada.
Columbia River TreatyMr. Wayne Stetski (Kootenay—Columbia, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the 1964 Columbia River Treaty provided economic and flood prevention benefits, but also caused significant environmental and cultural losses.
 Local communities and first nations were not consulted during the original negotiations. The people of Kootenay—Columbia believe that environmental priorities, including the restoration of salmon, must be incorporated into the renegotiation of the treaty. As mayor of Cranbrook, I helped write the report from local government on recommendations for the future of the CRT. Current negotiations must build on the important work that has already been done by local communities and ensure that first nations have a seat at the table. I urge and invite the federal government negotiators to visit our region, and really listen to those impacted so that we can get the best possible deal for British Columbians and all Canadians.
 While the CRT will be 54 years old on July 1, my constituent Mary Shypitka of Cranbrook will turn 100 years old on that day. I wish Mary a happy 100th birthday.
Interim PlaceMr. Sven Spengemann (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past four decades, Interim Place has profoundly changed the lives of many women and children in Peel region by helping them break cycles of violence and providing an opportunity to build new lives free of abuse. I recently attended Interim Place's second annual purple tie luncheon, an event that focused on the role men must play in promoting equality and stopping gender-based violence.
I would like to thank Sharon Floyd, Julia Robinson, staff, volunteers, donors, supporters, and the entire board of directors for serving as powerful agents of social change in our community. Their hard work, commitment, and advocacy on behalf of vulnerable women and girls is an inspiration not just to our community, but to all Canadians.
On August 28, Interim Place is hosting its 7th annual Step Forward To End Violence Against Women Walk in beautiful Port Credit. I encourage everyone in Peel region to walk with us on that day to demonstrate our commitment to ending violence against women and girls.
Huron—BruceMr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC): Mr. Speaker, summer is here again and it is time to remind all Canadians of the great things to visit in Huron—Bruce. 
If someone enjoys theatre they should check out the Blyth Festival Theatre, Huron Country Playhouse, and many other local theatres. There are festivals like the Goderich Celtic Festival, Kincardine Scottish Festival, bluesfest, jazzfest, Music in the Fields, and Zurich Bean Festival, to name just a few. How about homecomings? Check out Lucknow, Chepstow, and Kincardine homecomings.
Outdoors there are beautiful campgrounds at Point Farms Provincial Park, and MacGregor Park. There is horse racing in Clinton, motocross in Walton, and dozens of golf courses, hiking trails, biking trails, kayaking, canoeing, hunting, and fishing. There are breweries, wineries, lighthouse tours, farmers' markets, museums, beautiful sandy beaches and the best sunsets in the world.
 In one minute I cannot list all the great things happening in Huron—Bruce this summer. However, I can assure visitors of one thing. If they visit once, they will make Huron—Bruce their new home forever.
Nova ScotiaMr. Colin Fraser (West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Canadians plan their summer holidays, I extend a warm invitation to visit Nova Scotia and discover all that we have to offer. In western Nova Scotia there is so much to enjoy. If one is a history buff, visit Port Royal, the oldest permanent European settlement in Canada, or visit the historic Cape Forchu lighthouse near Yarmouth.
If one is an outdoor adventurist, they can explore Kejimkujik National Park, see North America's darkest skies, or embark on a whale watching excursion off Brier Island in the beautiful Bay of Fundy.
If one wishes to explore one's Acadian roots, one can take part in the world's oldest Acadian festival in Baie Sainte-Marie or travel back in time to the 19th century at the Historic Acadian Village of Nova Scotia in Lower West Pubnico.
Or perhaps one would like to stroll through the Annapolis Valley's apple orchards, sip on award-winning Nova Scotian wines, and dine on the world's finest seafood. Whether one visits for the history, the scenery, or the food, one will experience hospitality that is second to none in beautiful Nova Scotia.